Comic Vine News

169 Comments

Off My Mind: What if the Punisher Shot an Innocent?

It's his job to punish the guilty but what if he became guilty himself?

The Punisher has been seen as both hero and villain. Many simply call him an anti-hero. He may be a killer but he is on a mission he feels is just. There's no denying that Frank Castle has suffered through the worst thing that could happen to a man. While living a normal life, he and his family stumbled across a gangland killing. To avoid having witness that could identify them, the killers attempted to do away with Frank, his wife and children. Luckily (or unluckily) Frank managed to survive. He forever has to live with the memory of seeing those he loved more than anything shot down before his eyes.

That day Frank Castle did die and the Punisher was born. He is now determined to rid the world of evil...to punish all those that commit evil acts. He feels it is now his duty to ensure the horrible incident he had to witness doesn't happen to others. There is is no discrimination when he sets his sights on this target. Criminal scum all have the potential to kill in some way and he believes the world will be better off without their existence.

But the Punisher is still human. No one is perfect. With the unpredictability of the gunfights he becomes part of, there's no way he can account for every possible scenario. He might do his best to ensure there is no one in harm's way but it would be impossible for him to be sure someone doesn't turn up at the wrong place at the wrong time. What if while having a shootout with criminals he accidentally shoots and kills and innocent bystander? Would the Punisher be able to live with himself if he killed someone that was innocent?

In the Ultimate Universe, this is something that does indeed happen. While convinced he was doing the right thing in protecting Nick Fury, the Punisher targeted Captain America (he wasn't gonna kill him, just shoot him in the kneecaps). Spider-Man saw this about to happen and did the only thing he could, he pushed Cap out of the way. This resulted in Spider-Man, an innocent teenager, getting shot (don't worry, he's not dead...yet).

Needless to say, the Punisher flipped out, demanding that he be punished for this.

While this was Mark Millar writing the Punisher in the Ultimate Universe, it raises the question of what would his reaction be? When I first read Ultimate Comics Avengers vs New Ultimates #4, I thought his reaction was a little extreme. It was almost comical.

The thing to consider is, we're talking about a man who could be considered either obsessed or crazy (or more likely both). His only mission is to rid the world of the bad guys and protect the innocent. By shooting an innocent, he becomes one of those bad guys.

This almost happened before. You've probably heard about the infamous Punisher Meets Archie comic. The premise is Punisher is after a druglord known as "Red" Fever. Punisher chases him to Riverdale. It turns out he looks almost identical to Archie Andrews.

Punisher could have easily accidentally shot Archie. Imagine how heartbroken Betty and Veronica would have been. Riverdale would never be the same and it would be all Punisher's fault.

Was this polar bear guilty or innocent?

I have to admit I have not read every single Punisher appearance. In the 90s alone he was appearing practically in every Marvel book. I'm a little surprised that there hasn't been any innocents caught in the crossfire. Has it happened and I've missed it. For the Punisher to shoot and kill an innocent, it would be devastating. I could see that really pushing him over the edge (over a different edge at least). He may be an expert marksman and tactician but nobody's perfect. There's bound to be innocents caught in his one-man war against the criminal scum. When that day happens, Frank is going to need some serious counseling.

169 Comments
  • 169 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Posted by Harlekin
@cody1984 said:
@Harlekin said:
@Pokeysteve said:
And I'd be willing to bet Castle has saved more lives than Cap. 
Cap was part of the force that took down Onslaught who was going to kill everything so Cap has saved at the very least 6,000,000,000+ people. Plus his precipitation in WW2 and different Marvel events it's probably way over that number. So I think Cap has saved more people.
That was a group effort not Captain America alone.  
Didn't say he did it all by himself, just saying as a leader or member of the Avengers for years he helped save the world a hundred time over. He saved an incalculably number of living beings as a group or individual and its asinine to say otherwise. If there was no Steve Roger the world would probably be in a worse place then if there was no Frank Castle.
Posted by cody1984
@Harlekin said:
@cody1984 said:
@Harlekin said:
@Pokeysteve said:
And I'd be willing to bet Castle has saved more lives than Cap. 
Cap was part of the force that took down Onslaught who was going to kill everything so Cap has saved at the very least 6,000,000,000+ people. Plus his precipitation in WW2 and different Marvel events it's probably way over that number. So I think Cap has saved more people.
That was a group effort not Captain America alone.  
Didn't say he did it all by himself, just saying as a leader or member of the Avengers for years he helped save the world a hundred time over. He saved an incalculably number of living beings as a group or individual and its asinine to say otherwise. If there was no Steve Roger the world would probably be in a worse place then if there was no Frank Castle.
Actually Frank saved Hell which saved Heaven and Earth as well in Purgatory so Frank has saved the entire world from destruction before.  Purgatory sucked though and that's why Punisher fans don't talk about it.  

It's also not asinine to point out that Captain America had help because no one involved in stopping onslaught could've done it alone.  

As far as Captain America not being around goes that would be a great thing.  The character is absolutely disrespectful in every sense of the word to everyone who in real life fought in WW2.  The concept of Captain America I find disgusting to say the least since he doesn't represent the U.S. in any sense of the word since the U.S. is to diverse.  So Captain America being the poster boy of what America is suppose to be I find god awful and Stan Lee shouldn't have brought the character back.    
Posted by AlKusanagi

It's a war for Frank. Sadly, there are casualties and innocents caught up in war. It might tear him up inside when one catches a stray bullet, but unless he outright murdered one in cold blood, he wouldn't stop doing what he does.

Posted by cmaprice
@cody1984 said:
@cmaprice said:
@cody1984 said:
The Punisher is written way out of character again by an idiot.  
Out of character, perhaps, but Joss Whedon in far from an idiot. In terms of the how often he's out of character business, I personally feel it's a grey area. Characters like Frank have been written so many ways, it feels only fitting we should see him as being absolutely nuts and inconsistent. At the core, his rules are arbitrary and full of double standards, even when written correctly.I agree, though, that he probably wouldn't kill kids for simple theft. But let's keep in mind, the Runaways were largely rumored to have killed their own supervillain parents to take over their crime syndicate and here, they're working with Kingpin. Frank's first appearance was a mission to take out Spider-Man under false pretenses. How old was Pete at the time? The Punisher has historically often gone on bad intel. He's not nearly as calm and meticulous as his MAX depiction.
When it came to writing the Punisher Josh Whedon was an idiot.   

As far as the Punisher's going on bad intelligence goes it depends on the writer largely.  Matt Fraction had him look rather dumb most of the time Rick Remender did okay but Ennis is way out of there league when it comes to writing the Punisher.  Some people can't write certain characters at all whether its because they don't like them, they don't have the talent, and/or they just don't get the characters.  Josh Whedon's take on the Punisher is pretty straight forward idiotic approach showing that he didn't like the character, he lacks the talent to write him since he's not used to dealing with a character like him, and he doesn't get Frank Castle at all.  
Joss Whedon knows nothing about psychological complexity, you are so right.
Be glad the Punisher won't be seen in Joss's Avengers film, then, because he'd be written like an idiot. Completely unlike the last Punisher film. Heh.

@cody1984 said:
As far as Captain America not being around goes that would be a great thing.  The character is absolutely disrespectful in every sense of the word to everyone who in real life fought in WW2.  The concept of Captain America I find disgusting to say the least since he doesn't represent the U.S. in any sense of the word since the U.S. is to diverse.  So Captain America being the poster boy of what America is suppose to be I find god awful and Stan Lee shouldn't have brought the character back.    
Triple LOLz. He represents the iconic propaganda of the American Dream of the early to mid 20th Century. If you're holding him up to the standard of having to represent every citizen, that isn't even remotely Marvel's problem. No character can do that. It doesn't at all disrespect any real soldier of the era. Cap started out diegetically as a publicity stunt for recruitment. He's a product of his time and his government. He's as much an anachronism and an ironic symbol as he is anything else. He works on many levels to many people. He's nowhere near potentially insulting as the Punisher to real life veterans. As a Vietnam vet, he fits so many negative stereotypes. But are those stereotypes used as a jumping off point as a meta critique, or are they merely exploitative? Depends on the writer, as does Cap. Read up on Isaiah Bradley. Steve Rogers is just one part of a larger picture.
Posted by The Stegman
@cosmo111687@cody1984:


  

@ZORN@cody1984 said: 

@ZORN said: 

@cosmo111687 said: 
@LB70145: What BS. He would allow himself to go to jail, but he doesn't have the enough courage (yes, courage. see: Batman) to do the same for his victims. 
This is my opinion of Punisher:

 You get that creep, Molly!
If Batman had Courage he would have gone Dirty Harry on the Joker years ago, hell someone in the Gotham Police department should grow a pair and put the Joker down.
Indeed, the Joker's death toll is pathetic and someone should've executed him by now.  
Batman doesn't resist killing Joker out of a lack of courage, but because he's incredibly courageous and incredibly conscientious, for courage is the ability to do what's right in the face of overwhelming odds. He recognizes that by taking the law into his own hands, he not only undermines the authority of the rule of law and the self-efficacy of the GCPD and the Gotham citizenry, he also risks going down a slipper-slope whereby he would feel free to take the lives of any villains he'd wish. And at what point would that stop? Should Batman have the authority to act as judge-jury-and-executioner? Should he become the law? Should he just take control of Gotham, disband the GCPD, and create death-squads to murder all the inmates at Arkham Asylum and Blackgate, and then rule with an iron fist? And are all the villains of Gotham beyond redemption? Even Joker has had his moments of sanity, and in the Dark Knight, he was contained for a long while. But If Punisher were in Batman's shoes, all the villains, including Selina Kyle, would be lying in a pool of her own blood long ago (although I personally believe that if Punisher were Batman, he wouldn't survive for very long in Gotham). 

Frankly, if there's a "hero" who is proof that going down the Dirty Harry route is madness, look no further than Punisher.    

 completely agree with this, as a matter of fact i can't think of one "hero" in either dc or marvel who i have less respect or than the Punisher. Who is he to decided who's guilty or who's innocent? just because his family was killed he has the right to play judge jury and executioner? fact is if the punisher existed in the real world he himself would probably be on death row, he's nothing but a madman who excuses his own need for violence by saying that he's doing it to clean up crime. the fact of even calling him a hero, putting him in the same category as REAL heroes like Batman, superman, Spider-Man or Captain America is an insult to heroes everywhere. take the real  life heroes for example, if a cop were to go around killing those he deemed evil he would lose his badge, his job, and probably go on trial for it, the fact is Frank has NO RIGHT to take the law into his own hands to such an extreme. to be a hero is more than just stopping the bad guy, it's to let the public know that they can have faith in you to protect them, to make them feel safe, how the hell is frank making the feel safe by opening fire in a crowded city? fact is, i don't see frank as a hero, or even an anti hero, just like Jason Todd, or anyone other character like him, he's a villain, just as captain America says, he's a madman, a murderer
Posted by Pokeysteve
@cody1984 said:                                           

Either Batman is a coward or a moron when it comes to the Joker take your pick since either way it adds up to the deaths of a lot of innocent people which wouldn't happen if the Joker was going against the Punisher since Frank would just waste him.  Also Batman takes the law into his own hands every time he goes out and fights crime.  Batman is a vigilante after all. If the Punisher was in Gotham and was able to do his work it would be the best thing that ever happened to that city.    

   
I've been saying this for years. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar. The crossover was awesome =D

You guys are forgetting that ALL heroes whether super or not are vigilantes acting outside the law. At the end of the day if they want to take down a criminal all they would have to do is turn themselves in. That little slice of BS applies to lots of characters. The Batman gang most notably. 
Posted by cody1984
@cmaprice said:
@cody1984 said:
@cmaprice said:
@cody1984 said:
The Punisher is written way out of character again by an idiot.  
Out of character, perhaps, but Joss Whedon in far from an idiot. In terms of the how often he's out of character business, I personally feel it's a grey area. Characters like Frank have been written so many ways, it feels only fitting we should see him as being absolutely nuts and inconsistent. At the core, his rules are arbitrary and full of double standards, even when written correctly.I agree, though, that he probably wouldn't kill kids for simple theft. But let's keep in mind, the Runaways were largely rumored to have killed their own supervillain parents to take over their crime syndicate and here, they're working with Kingpin. Frank's first appearance was a mission to take out Spider-Man under false pretenses. How old was Pete at the time? The Punisher has historically often gone on bad intel. He's not nearly as calm and meticulous as his MAX depiction.
When it came to writing the Punisher Josh Whedon was an idiot.   

As far as the Punisher's going on bad intelligence goes it depends on the writer largely.  Matt Fraction had him look rather dumb most of the time Rick Remender did okay but Ennis is way out of there league when it comes to writing the Punisher.  Some people can't write certain characters at all whether its because they don't like them, they don't have the talent, and/or they just don't get the characters.  Josh Whedon's take on the Punisher is pretty straight forward idiotic approach showing that he didn't like the character, he lacks the talent to write him since he's not used to dealing with a character like him, and he doesn't get Frank Castle at all.  
Joss Whedon knows nothing about psychological complexity, you are so right.
Be glad the Punisher won't be seen in Joss's Avengers film, then, because he'd be written like an idiot. Completely unlike the last Punisher film. Heh.

@cody1984 said:
As far as Captain America not being around goes that would be a great thing.  The character is absolutely disrespectful in every sense of the word to everyone who in real life fought in WW2.  The concept of Captain America I find disgusting to say the least since he doesn't represent the U.S. in any sense of the word since the U.S. is to diverse.  So Captain America being the poster boy of what America is suppose to be I find god awful and Stan Lee shouldn't have brought the character back.    
Triple LOLz. He represents the iconic propaganda of the American Dream of the early to mid 20th Century. If you're holding him up to the standard of having to represent every citizen, that isn't even remotely Marvel's problem. No character can do that. It doesn't at all disrespect any real soldier of the era. Cap started out diegetically as a publicity stunt for recruitment. He's a product of his time and his government. He's as much an anachronism and an ironic symbol as he is anything else. He works on many levels to many people. He's nowhere near potentially insulting as the Punisher to real life veterans. As a Vietnam vet, he fits so many negative stereotypes. But are those stereotypes used as a jumping off point as a meta critique, or are they merely exploitative? Depends on the writer, as does Cap. Read up on Isaiah Bradley. Steve Rogers is just one part of a larger picture.

None of Joss Whedon’s characters are like the Punisher.  He writes off the wall characters the vast majority of the time.  So writing a black humor, gritty, noir style character he is not familiar with.  I'd take the Punisher: War Zone movie version of Frank Castle over Joss Whedon's any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Your right Captain America represents propaganda that's why can't stand the concept of him.  Him constantly fighting clones of Hitler, his descendents, and supposedly killing Hitler is f****** disgrace full to everyone involved in WW2.  The Punisher is one guy who became the Punisher over a lifetime of events from his dropping out of the church not going through becoming a priest to his childhood, to Vietnam, and the murder of his family.  The Punisher doesn't try to represent Vietnam War veterans or any war Veterans for that matter.  As and Iraq war veteran myself I can't find the character offensive since he doesn't claim to represent me or others unlike Captain America.  My problem also isn't with Steve Rogers he could go on living or not living in the marvel universe I could care less either way my problem is with the concept of Captain America.     
Edited by _Zombie_

Honestly, it would be similar(if not ten times as worse) as when he shot the cop in War Zone.  And to those saying he can't decide who's right and wrong, look at the people he kills.  ESPECIALLY in the Punisher MAX series.  Most of the time these are drug lords, gun runners, muderers, rapists, slavers, etc.  So, how is what he's doing wrong?  Almost everyone he kills deserved it.  It may not be right for him to decide who's evil and who's good, but at least he's killing the right people and not just butchering left and right. 

 

 He's not a hero, period.  He's a vigilante.  If he wanted to wear a cape and run around with the Avengers, he wouldn't of ever started his war.     If Frank did kill an innocent, it would kill him on the inside.  Honestly, I love Frank as a character.  Yeah, he's mentally unstable as hell, but he keeps offing the bad guys.

Posted by Matthevv
@cody1984 said:
@Matthevv said:

@cody1984The last notable times I can think of Punisher killing misdamenor criminals or basically... anyone not deserving death. A couple of instances come off the top of my head.-First appearance with spiderman, he murders a pair of purse snatchers.- Civil war he just plain murders a bunch of registered  very minor super villains who were simply sitting in line- Pretty much all the people he kills. Sure he gets the occasional murderer (Possibly deserving capitol punishment, debatable) The case and point is that if he really wanted to kill the biggest monster in any of his stories, he'd shoot himself.

 If memory serves me right he was drugged by Jigsaw when he did that.  

Him murdering super villains is surprising or evil how exactly?  

I'm sorry but the whole he should kill himself argument is stupid.  He's killed a lot of monsters that have really deserved what they got the slavers story arc is a perfect example of this.  Like I said before the guy is definitely no hero but he is not monster that some people make him out to be.  He's a very human adult character that in 616 is surrounded by a bunch of characters that get played off as boy scouts yet they do pretty horrible things that end up killing a lot of innocent people like the final battle in the civil war story that killed dozens of innocent bystanders yet for their labeled as heroes go figure.   

The murder of the minor super villains standing in line was surprising because it was unwarranted, and evil because it was completely unjust and in the wrong.  Not all villains deserve death, just as not all heroes deserve to continue going. Frank Castle being a great example of that. If you feel an argument is "Stupid" you should probably provide some proof to the matter, otherwise it just sounds silly or you're going for an off the cuff trolling attempt, which I doubt you actually are.

But in response to the rest of your argument, irrelevant, we aren't talking about any other hero at the moment, just punisher. What spiderman or captain america does is different. If you want to use them in argument, here's a critical difference, when someone get's hurt on Spidey's watch, he's remorseful because he's failed his duty as a hero. Punisher simply goes to find more people to kill. Further, if Jigsaw drugged Punisher (which I read it again, he didn't) that would complicate the logic used by punisher even more. If he can be let off for murder due to the fact that he was drugged, does he have to let off all the other people he's killed because they were on drugs? Nope, he murders them without checking. He just murders, doesn't matter his logic, he is simply a mass murderer, there's no greater good or logic in it. There would be no good in the world if everyone handled thing like punisher, thankfully, no one does.
Edited by _Zombie_
@Duo_forbidden
He was going after Cap if I'm not mistaken, Spidey just jumped in the way when he saw Frank about to shoot.
Posted by cody1984
@Matthevv said:

@cody1984 said:

@Matthevv said:

@cody1984The last notable times I can think of Punisher killing misdamenor criminals or basically... anyone not deserving death. A couple of instances come off the top of my head.-First appearance with spiderman, he murders a pair of purse snatchers.- Civil war he just plain murders a bunch of registered  very minor super villains who were simply sitting in line- Pretty much all the people he kills. Sure he gets the occasional murderer (Possibly deserving capitol punishment, debatable) The case and point is that if he really wanted to kill the biggest monster in any of his stories, he'd shoot himself.

 If memory serves me right he was drugged by Jigsaw when he did that.  

Him murdering super villains is surprising or evil how exactly?  

I'm sorry but the whole he should kill himself argument is stupid.  He's killed a lot of monsters that have really deserved what they got the slavers story arc is a perfect example of this.  Like I said before the guy is definitely no hero but he is not monster that some people make him out to be.  He's a very human adult character that in 616 is surrounded by a bunch of characters that get played off as boy scouts yet they do pretty horrible things that end up killing a lot of innocent people like the final battle in the civil war story that killed dozens of innocent bystanders yet for their labeled as heroes go figure.   

The murder of the minor super villains standing in line was surprising because it was unwarranted, and evil because it was completely unjust and in the wrong.  Not all villains deserve death, just as not all heroes deserve to continue going. Frank Castle being a great example of that. If you feel an argument is "Stupid" you should probably provide some proof to the matter, otherwise it just sounds silly or you're going for an off the cuff trolling attempt, which I doubt you actually are. But in response to the rest of your argument, irrelevant, we aren't talking about any other hero at the moment, just punisher. What spiderman or captain america does is different. If you want to use them in argument, here's a critical difference, when someone get's hurt on Spidey's watch, he's remorseful because he's failed his duty as a hero. Punisher simply goes to find more people to kill. Further, if Jigsaw drugged Punisher (which I read it again, he didn't) that would complicate the logic used by punisher even more. If he can be let off for murder due to the fact that he was drugged, does he have to let off all the other people he's killed because they were on drugs? Nope, he murders them without checking. He just murders, doesn't matter his logic, he is simply a mass murderer, there's no greater good or logic in it. There would be no good in the world if everyone handled thing like punisher, thankfully, no one does.

Just saying he should kill himself is stupid if we went by that logic just about every "hero" and every villain in comics should've offed themselves by now since they have all done horrible things.  You keep comparing him to heroes that is why I bring them up.  Not only that but the Punisher is not a hero he is a straight vigilante who could care less if he's viewed as one of the good guys.  Since you brought up Captain America and Spiderman fine let's look at what happened during the civil war.  The big battle they had at the end tore up NYC and killed 47 innocent bystanders because of their nonsense. I believe the Jigsaw part was ret conned later it's been while though since I read comics from that far back.  I also didn't use that as an excuse for him killing scum.  I brought that up to explain why he shot at innocent people.  In the comic book world it would be a great thing if the heroes acted like the Punisher since there would be no more joker running around killing people, there would be no more Dr. Doom trying to conquer the world, and there would be no more Loki screwing up the world for his own amusement.  So Frank's way of doing things makes absolute sense considering how many villains break out of jail with ease and have been shown repeatedly they will not stop until they are dead.     

Posted by seiibutsu

didnt he go totally off the wall for a short while back in the day and kill or "punish" someone for j-walking

Posted by Matthevv

@ cody1984

And I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by that. I mean he states he is killing monsters and murderers, when he himself is the very thing he hunts. If his ideal self was to go hunting his ultimate prey, it'd be his actual self. The person in the most dire need of "punishment" in Frank Castle's eye, is the Punisher.

Posted by sa5m

he he

Posted by cody1984
@Matthevv said:
@ cody1984And I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by that. I mean he states he is killing monsters and murderers, when he himself is the very thing he hunts. If his ideal self was to go hunting his ultimate prey, it'd be his actual self. The person in the most dire need of "punishment" in Frank Castle's eye, is the Punisher.
Trying to spin this another way doesn't make a valid argument that he should kill himself.  Frank has saved lives of people before has been selfless in his comics Spacker, Bumpo, Joan, Soap, and Kathryn come to mind where the Punisher helped them even though he didn't need to.  The Punisher is not an evil monster that you believe he is.    
Posted by LB70145
@cody1984 said:
@LB70145 said:

@cody1984: I am pretty sure that it has been confirmed that Frank is certifiably insane. PTSD, Sociopathic tendencies, Antisocial and I am pretty sure overwrought with Paranoia.

Frank's not insane if he was he would've killed a lot of cops and superheroes by now since he has had the opportunity to do so many times.  The Punisher is fully aware of his actions and clearly capable of making rational choices and using logic in his dealings with others.  People might view his war as insane and we can argue all day long whether or not its morally right the point is though that his war might be viewed by others as nuts doesn't mean that Castle is insane.    

@Matthevv said:

The punisher is simply the worst hero of all time. He's an insane mass murderer with the ethics capacity of a 5 year old. He kills innocents all the time. He kills people for misdamenors. Here's another fun one, when he was blending in with Neo Nazi's he beats his friend's fiance' to death with a crowbar, and then afterward ends up just shooting the Neo Nazi's. There you go. Killed innocents, kills everyone. No morals, no logic. Just  an awful character.

Outside of him being mind controlled when has he gunned down people for committing misdemeanors?  Also the when it comes to   Tatiana Arocha Frank was being affected by a mind controlling machine making him kill.      
I'm sorry but your statements don't make any sense. How do you go from Frank not being insane to if he was insane he would be killing cops and superheros? How does being fully aware of his actions and being able to make rational choices/using logic make one sane? Maybe you should check out the definition of insanity. Also, I did not say his war is insane. HE is the one that is insane. I am not arguing morality/ethics. I am saying the guy has some serious mental issues and he is certifiably insane. Notice I do not talk about his actions specifically, I talk about the behaviors he has displayed in his history.

However, remember this is a comics universe. Does it really matter that Frank is mentally stable? No. Cause he is going to continue killing more people than most villains will.
Posted by cody1984
@LB70145 said:

@cody1984 said:

@LB70145 said:

@cody1984: I am pretty sure that it has been confirmed that Frank is certifiably insane. PTSD, Sociopathic tendencies, Antisocial and I am pretty sure overwrought with Paranoia.

Frank's not insane if he was he would've killed a lot of cops and superheroes by now since he has had the opportunity to do so many times.  The Punisher is fully aware of his actions and clearly capable of making rational choices and using logic in his dealings with others.  People might view his war as insane and we can argue all day long whether or not its morally right the point is though that his war might be viewed by others as nuts doesn't mean that Castle is insane.    

@Matthevv said:

The punisher is simply the worst hero of all time. He's an insane mass murderer with the ethics capacity of a 5 year old. He kills innocents all the time. He kills people for misdamenors. Here's another fun one, when he was blending in with Neo Nazi's he beats his friend's fiance' to death with a crowbar, and then afterward ends up just shooting the Neo Nazi's. There you go. Killed innocents, kills everyone. No morals, no logic. Just  an awful character.

Outside of him being mind controlled when has he gunned down people for committing misdemeanors?  Also the when it comes to   Tatiana Arocha Frank was being affected by a mind controlling machine making him kill.      
I'm sorry but your statements don't make any sense. How do you go from Frank not being insane to if he was insane he would be killing cops and superheros? How does being fully aware of his actions and being able to make rational choices/using logic make one sane? Maybe you should check out the definition of insanity. Also, I did not say his war is insane. HE is the one that is insane. I am not arguing morality/ethics. I am saying the guy has some serious mental issues and he is certifiably insane. Notice I do not talk about his actions specifically, I talk about the behaviors he has displayed in his history.

However, remember this is a comics universe. Does it really matter that Frank is mentally stable? No. Cause he is going to continue killing more people than most villains will.
The reason why he is not insane is because he can make rational decisions and use logic.  If he was insane he would be doing things that don't make any sense like just walking into a police station and gunning down cops because he feels like it then the next day attending sunday mass complaining about muggers just killing people randomly, or killing someone like Spiderman because he thinks he's Satan.  Since you brought up the defination of insanity lets take a look at what Webster's says.

1
: a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)

2
: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility

3
a: extreme folly or unreasonableness b: something utterly foolish or unreasonable 
   
Well Frank's not schizophrenic, he's not shown as suffering from PTSD.  Yes he thinks back to when his family died but that is not the same as having PTSD.

Frank was judged able to stand trial before in the marvel universe and he does understand his actions so no insanity there.

Frank is relentless to be sure but completely unreasonable?  No he can be reasoned with and has let things slide before when others asked him to.  While he might be thick headed and he does take risks he doesn't engage in extreme folly or is unable to reason with others.

Now are we done with the nonsense insanity argument?  
 
Posted by LB70145
@cody1984: Hey man, your favorite character is your favorite character. I don't intend on changing that. However, here are the facts.

Frank is definitely  schizophrenic. When you looked up insanity maybe you should have looked up  schizophrenia as well.   

According to  the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM-IV-TR), to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, three diagnostic criteria must be met:

  1. Characteristic symptoms: Two or more of the following, each present for much of the time during a one-month period (or less, if symptoms remitted with treatment).
    • Delusions
    • Hallucinations
    • Disorganized speech
    • Grossly disorganized behavior or catatonic behavior
    • Negative symptoms: Blunted affect (lack or decline in emotional response), alogia, or avolition
Here we see that Frank suffers from 1 and 5.

His view of life is purely delusional. If he truly thinks that he is acting in the right then he is delusional. A Delusion is a fixed false belief. The truth is, he kills people, takes their money/things and doesn't abide by the law in any sense of the word. Granted he kills bad people. However, fighting evil and doing good are not the same thing.

As for Negative symptoms, he has turned into a cold blooded killer. He sees the world as black and white. He doesn't feel remorse for killing, unless their innocent people. The major contention I am making with his  schizophrenia, is the fact that he has lost touch with humanity and society. He takes life with the hesitation of a hungry lion hunting a fat antelope. He is a living version of the Terminator. He is Dexter with guns.

Also, you should have looked up PTSD as well. His experience in Vietnam and the death of his family, are more than enough to physically and psychologically damage any individual. Bullying can cause PTSD. If getting shoved into a locker can cause PTSD, his time in Vietnam and the iconic death of his family is enough to cause PTSD. Did he experience traumatic events? Yes. Does he have flashbacks to those events? Yes. Emotional Numbing? Yes. Increased responses (i.e. anger issues, hypervigilance )? Yes. Lasts for more than 1 month? Yes. Does the experience cause impairment? Yes, I do believe he just met all the requirements of PTSD.

Knowing your actions alone are not evidence of sanity. Having reason and logic is not evidence of sanity. Knowing his actions and being logical is evidence that the is calculated. Even the most calculated, tactical and brilliant people can be insane. His being able to stand trial in the marvel universe is not evidence of his sanity. Most people who are considered unfit to stand trial later on stand trial. So that point is moot as well.

My personal opinion is this. All analysis and fact aside. As much as the Punisher is this giant vengeance fantasy. Vengeance does not solve anything. His family is dead. They are not coming back. Killing in their memory is no different than killing in the name of God. Killing is killing. And killing is wrong. He is not a hero in any sense of the word in my opinion. Saving lives by taking the lives of others is philosophical debate  we are not settling here. This is my opinion and I ask that you please respect that.

Frankly (no pun intended), the Punisher was a character that lived long past his entertainment value. He is a dry, one note, flat character. Ennis' Punisher has been the only readable Punisher story in recent memory. His recent stint as FrankenCastle, is evidence of his decline into self-parody. "The Punisher in the white boots" is a part of the Marvel Universe that is uninteresting and completely silly. He's the one character trying to be "dark and serious" in a crowd of colorful characters. It doesn't work. He doesn't work. The Punisher is a Joke. Sorry about the rant, but this character doesn't deserve so much attention. Again, this is just my opinion.

But don't get me wrong there are several characters like the Punisher that I disagree with and full out dislike. I am sorry if I offended you with my opinion, yet I am entitled to that opinion as you are.
Posted by cody1984
@LB70145 said:
@cody1984: Hey man, your favorite character is your favorite character. I don't intend on changing that. However, here are the facts.

Frank is definitely  schizophrenic. When you looked up insanity maybe you should have looked up  schizophrenia as well.   

According to  the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM-IV-TR), to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, three diagnostic criteria must be met:

  1. Characteristic symptoms: Two or more of the following, each present for much of the time during a one-month period (or less, if symptoms remitted with treatment).
    • Delusions
    • Hallucinations
    • Disorganized speech
    • Grossly disorganized behavior or catatonic behavior
    • Negative symptoms: Blunted affect (lack or decline in emotional response), alogia, or avolition
Here we see that Frank suffers from 1 and 5.

His view of life is purely delusional. If he truly thinks that he is acting in the right then he is delusional. A Delusion is a fixed false belief. The truth is, he kills people, takes their money/things and doesn't abide by the law in any sense of the word. Granted he kills bad people. However, fighting evil and doing good are not the same thing.

As for Negative symptoms, he has turned into a cold blooded killer. He sees the world as black and white. He doesn't feel remorse for killing, unless their innocent people. The major contention I am making with his  schizophrenia, is the fact that he has lost touch with humanity and society. He takes life with the hesitation of a hungry lion hunting a fat antelope. He is a living version of the Terminator. He is Dexter with guns.

Also, you should have looked up PTSD as well. His experience in Vietnam and the death of his family, are more than enough to physically and psychologically damage any individual. Bullying can cause PTSD. If getting shoved into a locker can cause PTSD, his time in Vietnam and the iconic death of his family is enough to cause PTSD. Did he experience traumatic events? Yes. Does he have flashbacks to those events? Yes. Emotional Numbing? Yes. Increased responses (i.e. anger issues, hypervigilance )? Yes. Lasts for more than 1 month? Yes. Does the experience cause impairment? Yes, I do believe he just met all the requirements of PTSD.

Knowing your actions alone are not evidence of sanity. Having reason and logic is not evidence of sanity. Knowing his actions and being logical is evidence that the is calculated. Even the most calculated, tactical and brilliant people can be insane. His being able to stand trial in the marvel universe is not evidence of his sanity. Most people who are considered unfit to stand trial later on stand trial. So that point is moot as well.

My personal opinion is this. All analysis and fact aside. As much as the Punisher is this giant vengeance fantasy. Vengeance does not solve anything. His family is dead. They are not coming back. Killing in their memory is no different than killing in the name of God. Killing is killing. And killing is wrong. He is not a hero in any sense of the word in my opinion. Saving lives by taking the lives of others is philosophical debate  we are not settling here. This is my opinion and I ask that you please respect that.

Frankly (no pun intended), the Punisher was a character that lived long past his entertainment value. He is a dry, one note, flat character. Ennis' Punisher has been the only readable Punisher story in recent memory. His recent stint as FrankenCastle, is evidence of his decline into self-parody. "The Punisher in the white boots" is a part of the Marvel Universe that is uninteresting and completely silly. He's the one character trying to be "dark and serious" in a crowd of colorful characters. It doesn't work. He doesn't work. The Punisher is a Joke. Sorry about the rant, but this character doesn't deserve so much attention. Again, this is just my opinion.

But don't get me wrong there are several characters like the Punisher that I disagree with and full out dislike. I am sorry if I offended you with my opinion, yet I am entitled to that opinion as you are.
One Frank is not delusional and two he is capable of showing emotions so no is not   schizophrenic.  

He doesn't suffer from PTSD.  Getting shoved in locker doesn't cause PTSD.  People who believe that never met anyone actually suffering from PTSD why you think this is f****** beyond me.  The only way I can see some getting diagnosed with PTSD because they were shoved in a locker is because there where in million dollar lawsuit.  

The experience has also not impaired his judgment because he is capable of making rational decisions so no he is not impaired.  

Also your bouncing back and forth here saying that on one hand he's impaired and the comment below stating he can make rational decisions.  You can't have both ways either he is impaired or he is not.  

He was diagnosed as sane by a shrink in the marvel universe before not just fit to stand trial.  

Your using your own morality as the guide as to why you think Frank Castle is insane and trying to dress it up as fact.  So please just state IMO not facts because you haven't brought any.  Your end paragraph your flat out showing your bias to why you don't like Frank Castle.  Fine I get that and quite frankly I don't a f*** either.  You don't like him okay but whining about him as you are doing now is pathetic man.  I don't like superman and Captain America but you want see me going to there forums on here bitching about them.  



Posted by LB70145
@cody1984: Hey man calm down. Why does my labeling Punisher insane bother you so much? I am not whining at all. I was just stating fact. Granted the last three paragraphs are my opinion but I do say that. And like I said before I am entitled to those opinions. You can't just say "he doesn't have PTSD" and give a opinionated/non-factual statement to disprove me. I used an actual medical text, a medical text that I use. You can't fight fact. 
 
Other than that I am going to give you three side notes here buddy. 
 
1) You don't have to swear in order to convey frustration nor do you have to call out my bias. I clearly state that I am biased when I stated my opinion. But my opinions did not create fact. The fact was there and I revealed it. My opinions were the only things I created. Also, misspellings and hastened words do not make a good argument on your part. 
 
2) Also, don't lie. You clearly stated your dislike against Captain America in earlier comments. I can read too :)
 
@cody1984 said:
@cmaprice said:
@cody1984 said:
@cmaprice said:
@cody1984 said:
The Punisher is written way out of character again by an idiot.  
Out of character, perhaps, but Joss Whedon in far from an idiot. In terms of the how often he's out of character business, I personally feel it's a grey area. Characters like Frank have been written so many ways, it feels only fitting we should see him as being absolutely nuts and inconsistent. At the core, his rules are arbitrary and full of double standards, even when written correctly.I agree, though, that he probably wouldn't kill kids for simple theft. But let's keep in mind, the Runaways were largely rumored to have killed their own supervillain parents to take over their crime syndicate and here, they're working with Kingpin. Frank's first appearance was a mission to take out Spider-Man under false pretenses. How old was Pete at the time? The Punisher has historically often gone on bad intel. He's not nearly as calm and meticulous as his MAX depiction.
When it came to writing the Punisher Josh Whedon was an idiot.   

As far as the Punisher's going on bad intelligence goes it depends on the writer largely.  Matt Fraction had him look rather dumb most of the time Rick Remender did okay but Ennis is way out of there league when it comes to writing the Punisher.  Some people can't write certain characters at all whether its because they don't like them, they don't have the talent, and/or they just don't get the characters.  Josh Whedon's take on the Punisher is pretty straight forward idiotic approach showing that he didn't like the character, he lacks the talent to write him since he's not used to dealing with a character like him, and he doesn't get Frank Castle at all.  
Joss Whedon knows nothing about psychological complexity, you are so right.
Be glad the Punisher won't be seen in Joss's Avengers film, then, because he'd be written like an idiot. Completely unlike the last Punisher film. Heh.

@cody1984 said:
As far as Captain America not being around goes that would be a great thing.  The character is absolutely disrespectful in every sense of the word to everyone who in real life fought in WW2.  The concept of Captain America I find disgusting to say the least since he doesn't represent the U.S. in any sense of the word since the U.S. is to diverse.  So Captain America being the poster boy of what America is suppose to be I find god awful and Stan Lee shouldn't have brought the character back.    
Triple LOLz. He represents the iconic propaganda of the American Dream of the early to mid 20th Century. If you're holding him up to the standard of having to represent every citizen, that isn't even remotely Marvel's problem. No character can do that. It doesn't at all disrespect any real soldier of the era. Cap started out diegetically as a publicity stunt for recruitment. He's a product of his time and his government. He's as much an anachronism and an ironic symbol as he is anything else. He works on many levels to many people. He's nowhere near potentially insulting as the Punisher to real life veterans. As a Vietnam vet, he fits so many negative stereotypes. But are those stereotypes used as a jumping off point as a meta critique, or are they merely exploitative? Depends on the writer, as does Cap. Read up on Isaiah Bradley. Steve Rogers is just one part of a larger picture.

None of Joss Whedon’s characters are like the Punisher.  He writes off the wall characters the vast majority of the time.  So writing a black humor, gritty, noir style character he is not familiar with.  I'd take the Punisher: War Zone movie version of Frank Castle over Joss Whedon's any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Your right Captain America represents propaganda that's why can't stand the concept of him.  Him constantly fighting clones of Hitler, his descendents, and supposedly killing Hitler is f****** disgrace full to everyone involved in WW2.  The Punisher is one guy who became the Punisher over a lifetime of events from his dropping out of the church not going through becoming a priest to his childhood, to Vietnam, and the murder of his family.  The Punisher doesn't try to represent Vietnam War veterans or any war Veterans for that matter.  As and Iraq war veteran myself I can't find the character offensive since he doesn't claim to represent me or others unlike Captain America.  My problem also isn't with Steve Rogers he could go on living or not living in the marvel universe I could care less either way my problem is with the concept of Captain America.     
 
3) Also, insulting a person is not going to help your argument ever. 
 
I really don't have to state anything else. I don't need to dismantle your statements anymore. You did that for me. ;)
Edited by cody1984
@LB70145 said:

@cody1984: Hey man calm down. Why does my labeling Punisher insane bother you so much? I am not whining at all. I was just stating fact. Granted the last three paragraphs are my opinion but I do say that. And like I said before I am entitled to those opinions. You can't just say "he doesn't have PTSD" and give a opinionated/non-factual statement to disprove me. I used an actual medical text, a medical text that I use. You can't fight fact. 
 
Other than that I am going to give you three side notes here buddy. 
 
1) You don't have to swear in order to convey frustration nor do you have to call out my bias. I clearly state that I am biased when I stated my opinion. But my opinions did not create fact. The fact was there and I revealed it. My opinions were the only things I created. Also, misspellings and hastened words do not make a good argument on your part. 
 
2) Also, don't lie. You clearly stated your dislike against Captain America in earlier comments. I can read too :)
 
@cody1984 said:

@cmaprice said:
@cody1984 said:
@cmaprice said:
@cody1984 said:
The Punisher is written way out of character again by an idiot.  
Out of character, perhaps, but Joss Whedon in far from an idiot. In terms of the how often he's out of character business, I personally feel it's a grey area. Characters like Frank have been written so many ways, it feels only fitting we should see him as being absolutely nuts and inconsistent. At the core, his rules are arbitrary and full of double standards, even when written correctly.I agree, though, that he probably wouldn't kill kids for simple theft. But let's keep in mind, the Runaways were largely rumored to have killed their own supervillain parents to take over their crime syndicate and here, they're working with Kingpin. Frank's first appearance was a mission to take out Spider-Man under false pretenses. How old was Pete at the time? The Punisher has historically often gone on bad intel. He's not nearly as calm and meticulous as his MAX depiction.
When it came to writing the Punisher Josh Whedon was an idiot.   
As far as the Punisher's going on bad intelligence goes it depends on the writer largely.  Matt Fraction had him look rather dumb most of the time Rick Remender did okay but Ennis is way out of there league when it comes to writing the Punisher.  Some people can't write certain characters at all whether its because they don't like them, they don't have the talent, and/or they just don't get the characters.  Josh Whedon's take on the Punisher is pretty straight forward idiotic approach showing that he didn't like the character, he lacks the talent to write him since he's not used to dealing with a character like him, and he doesn't get Frank Castle at all.  
Joss Whedon knows nothing about psychological complexity, you are so right.
Be glad the Punisher won't be seen in Joss's Avengers film, then, because he'd be written like an idiot. Completely unlike the last Punisher film. Heh.

@cody1984 said:
As far as Captain America not being around goes that would be a great thing.  The character is absolutely disrespectful in every sense of the word to everyone who in real life fought in WW2.  The concept of Captain America I find disgusting to say the least since he doesn't represent the U.S. in any sense of the word since the U.S. is to diverse.  So Captain America being the poster boy of what America is suppose to be I find god awful and Stan Lee shouldn't have brought the character back.    
Triple LOLz. He represents the iconic propaganda of the American Dream of the early to mid 20th Century. If you're holding him up to the standard of having to represent every citizen, that isn't even remotely Marvel's problem. No character can do that. It doesn't at all disrespect any real soldier of the era. Cap started out diegetically as a publicity stunt for recruitment. He's a product of his time and his government. He's as much an anachronism and an ironic symbol as he is anything else. He works on many levels to many people. He's nowhere near potentially insulting as the Punisher to real life veterans. As a Vietnam vet, he fits so many negative stereotypes. But are those stereotypes used as a jumping off point as a meta critique, or are they merely exploitative? Depends on the writer, as does Cap. Read up on Isaiah Bradley. Steve Rogers is just one part of a larger picture.

None of Joss Whedon’s characters are like the Punisher.  He writes off the wall characters the vast majority of the time.  So writing a black humor, gritty, noir style character he is not familiar with.  I'd take the Punisher: War Zone movie version of Frank Castle over Joss Whedon's any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Your right Captain America represents propaganda that's why can't stand the concept of him.  Him constantly fighting clones of Hitler, his descendents, and supposedly killing Hitler is f****** disgrace full to everyone involved in WW2.  The Punisher is one guy who became the Punisher over a lifetime of events from his dropping out of the church not going through becoming a priest to his childhood, to Vietnam, and the murder of his family.  The Punisher doesn't try to represent Vietnam War veterans or any war Veterans for that matter.  As and Iraq war veteran myself I can't find the character offensive since he doesn't claim to represent me or others unlike Captain America.  My problem also isn't with Steve Rogers he could go on living or not living in the marvel universe I could care less either way my problem is with the concept of Captain America.     
 3) Also, insulting a person is not going to help your argument ever.  I really don't have to state anything else. I don't need to dismantle your statements anymore. You did that for me. ;)

Problem with your argument is your giving your opinion as fact.  You listed a definition of insanity and gave your opinion why Frank matches it.  That is not a fact that is an opinion.  You don't like the character because you disagree with the characters concept morally, however just because you don't agree with characters reasons why he does what he does in no way shape or form proves that Frank Castle is insane.  The new writer of the Punisher Greg Rucka is on the record for saying the Punisher is not insane.  In the comics people view him as insane but no proof that he's insane has been provided.   
 
Apparently you can't read very well I said I don't like Captain America and Superman yet I'm not going to go to their forums on comicvine to bitch about them.  As far as grammar and spelling goes when people start pointing that out they don't have any argument left.

Posted by LB70145
@cody1984: You still didn't answer my question. Why does calling Punisher insane bother you so much (you can pm this to me if you would like)? I think you are taking this a little personally. I know he's one of your favorite characters, but your need to defend his sanity is unneeded. Insane or not his fans are his fans. I cannot change that. I am not trying to change your liking for the character and I am not insulting the character. Insanity is part of his character. I like Deadpool and Moon Knight and they are the literal definitions of insane. The only difference between Punisher, Deadpool and Moon Knight is the varying degrees of insanity.
 
Also, a few things... 
 
1) I did not say I don't like Punisher because he has bad morals. Granted he does. But I don't like him because he is a dry, one note, flat character. I like characters with depth. I have issues with the morals/actions of many characters, but that doesn't stop me from liking them. Characters like Green Arrow and Iron Man instantly come to mind. Punisher is just a dull character in my opinion. That is why I don't like him. Even Rucka has said that he is a very simple character. He's a product of the 80s. He had the same rise to popularity as Wolverine because of the fact that he was different. He was willing to kill. Like I said before, Ennis wrote some awesome Punisher stories. Other than that, Punisher stories I have read before are just uninteresting. You can't change that. If you like that fine, but you have to accept that there are people that don't like this character. Why do you think he hasn't been popular lately. The violence wagon he rode on in the 80s doesn't work anymore. Sales of Punisher books have been low ever since. Because of the fact that he is generally uninteresting. I mean he is just Batman if Batman were willing to kill and more crazy.
 
2) I can read well, but you need to watch what you say. In your words exactly, "I don't like superman and Captain America but you want see me going to there forums on here bitching about them. " The reason why I bring up grammar and spelling is this exactly. I had to guess at what you meant. You said here and use the incorrect version of there. You meant to say their. As you can see it is hard to argue with people when they barely write properly.  The sentence doesn't make sense. Either way you still bad mouthed Captain America on a Comic Vine Forum.  Thus, I pointed it out that you lied. However, since you meant to say something else I apologize for calling you a liar. You merely gave an incorrect statement and I reacted to the incorrect statement.

3) I didn't give opinions to prove his insanity. I gave observations to prove his insanity.  I was just pointing out aspects of his personality.
 
4) I have plenty of argument left. However you have yet present any decent arguments. I can definitely continue to prove Frank's insanity if you wish as well as point out very big flaws with the Punisher's character and moral code. I only pointed out your grammar so I can correctly argue against you. I pointed out your insult to me because I don't this to turn to a flame war. And I pointed out your swearing because I want to keep this civil. You make what you want of this, but I don't want you to get in trouble. I am only looking out for you buddy.
Edited by cody1984
@LB70145 said:

@cody1984: You still didn't answer my question. Why does calling Punisher insane bother you so much (you can pm this to me if you would like)? I think you are taking this a little personally. I know he's one of your favorite characters, but your need to defend his sanity is unneeded. Insane or not his fans are his fans. I cannot change that. I am not trying to change your liking for the character and I am not insulting the character. Insanity is part of his character. I like Deadpool and Moon Knight and they are the literal definitions of insane. The only difference between Punisher, Deadpool and Moon Knight is the varying degrees of insanity.
 
Also, a few things... 
 
1) I did not say I don't like Punisher because he has bad morals. Granted he does. But I don't like him because he is a dry, one note, flat character. I like characters with depth. I have issues with the morals/actions of many characters, but that doesn't stop me from liking them. Characters like Green Arrow and Iron Man instantly come to mind. Punisher is just a dull character in my opinion. That is why I don't like him. Even Rucka has said that he is a very simple character. He's a product of the 80s. He had the same rise to popularity as Wolverine because of the fact that he was different. He was willing to kill. Like I said before, Ennis wrote some awesome Punisher stories. Other than that, Punisher stories I have read before are just uninteresting. You can't change that. If you like that fine, but you have to accept that there are people that don't like this character. Why do you think he hasn't been popular lately. The violence wagon he rode on in the 80s doesn't work anymore. Sales of Punisher books have been low ever since. Because of the fact that he is generally uninteresting. I mean he is just Batman if Batman were willing to kill and more crazy.
 
2) I can read well, but you need to watch what you say. In your words exactly, "I don't like superman and Captain America but you want see me going to there forums on here bitching about them. " The reason why I bring up grammar and spelling is this exactly. I had to guess at what you meant. You said here and use the incorrect version of there. You meant to say their. As you can see it is hard to argue with people when they barely write properly.  The sentence doesn't make sense. Either way you still bad mouthed Captain America on a Comic Vine Forum.  Thus, I pointed it out that you lied. However, since you meant to say something else I apologize for calling you a liar. You merely gave an incorrect statement and I reacted to the incorrect statement.3) I didn't give opinions to prove his insanity. I gave observations to prove his insanity.  I was just pointing out aspects of his personality. 4) I have plenty of argument left. However you have yet present any decent arguments. I can definitely continue to prove Frank's insanity if you wish as well as point out very big flaws with the Punisher's character and moral code. I only pointed out your grammar so I can correctly argue against you. I And I pointed out your swearing because I want to keep this civil. You make what you want of this, but I don't want you to get in trouble. I am only looking out for you buddy.

 

You calling him insane because you believe so doesn't bother me you trying to state its factual does because there is no evidence backing your claim.  I'm not arguing with everyone posted that they believe he is insane.  I'm arguing with you because you stated it was a fact.  Your continued stating that he is insane with no proof on the matter because you don't like the character is annoying because there isn't anything backing it up other than your view point.   
 
I view Green Arrow and Tony Stark as retarded.  Green Arrow shoots arrows and comes off as annoying.  Tony is essentially the stereotypical playboy billionaire who happens to have a drinking problem I could care less about.   
 
Whether a character is simple or complex really doesn't matter if it comes to the character being good or not.  Too much complexity can lead to stupidity which often happens in the X-men books.  Having a bunch of convoluted characters and story lines doesn't make a story arc good in fact I view it as a negative because the story gets to become ridiculous at the end and the things the characters do become dumber and dumber.   
 
Batman and Punisher are not different versions of each other.  Punisher is not a billionaire, Batman never fought in the Vietnam War, Punisher tends to use conventional weapons or whatever gear he gets his hands on, Batman uses a lot of his own gadgets unique to him, and their personalities are quite a bit different, besides them both being vigilantes there aren't that many similarities between them.  So I don't get why people think there opposite sides of the same coin.    
  
You’re bitching about my writing because you made yourself look like an ass and are trying to cover that up.  Also you are the one claiming that it is a fact he is insane so the burden of proof lies with you.  Oh yeah one other thing if you’re going to try be a smart ass and point out grammar mistakes you might not want to make any of your own.   

" pointed out your insult to me because I don't this to turn to a flame war."

That's a fragment not a complete sentence.  

Again why do you think I care about your feelings about the Punisher?  I said before I could give a flying f*** less my problem is you claiming your personal opinions as facts when they were anything but.    
Posted by LB70145
@cody1984: Clearly you are not going go about this calmly. If anything, please in future posts refrain from using the r-word and insulting people. Calling people names doesn't make you a good person and will get you in trouble. You have more than proved my point.
Posted by cody1984
@LB70145 said:
@cody1984: Clearly you are not going go about this calmly. If anything, please in future posts refrain from using the r-word and insulting people. Calling people names doesn't make you a good person and will get you in trouble. You have more than proved my point.
Trying to label me as crazy now because you can't win argument is typical of you isn't it?  After all you claim that it was a fact that Frank Castle is insane and couldn't prove it, you went on about my grammar and in the same paragraph you had a fragment and not a complete sentence so you had to drop that.  Since you got nothing left your trying to save grace by labeling me nuts just like anybody who doesn't agree with you right? 
 
By the way it's the f-word genius.  
Edited by LB70145
@cody1984: I didn't call you crazy. When I said the r-word I meant when you said retarded. You don't have to go around using hate speech. The r-word is just as bad as any racial slur.  
 
Again, I try to have civil confrontations and share knowledge with people on these forums. Some people just can't handle that, especially when they respond with hate speech and calling people names. I've worked with many patients that are always on the defensive. You are acting in the same fashion. I did not aim to insult you at all. 
 
I apologize if you take any of my remarks, present and past, personally. Seriously, when you react to people in the future, whether its on the forums or in real life, look at what is being said and think before acting. This could have been a exchange of knowledge but instead devolved into insults fueled by ignorance and the over zealous defense on one's favorite character. I am giving advice and met by accusations. There have been misconceptions between opinion and fact, on both sides. Hopefully people are able to be more understanding of your behavior than I. I proved the Punisher is insane using my observations. Like or not, they are there for anyone to read. If truly like the character this much, then honor that with good counter-argument. Anyone can make contentions against my observations, in fact I welcome that. However, you have only proved you love this character. That's great. But there are going to be people who read my arguments. Some will agree and some won't. In the end, I set out to make my observations and succeeded. Whether you call me an ass or accuse me of calling you crazy is irrelevant. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to. I would really like to see someone prove to me Frank is sane/not have PTSD. Disagreeing with someone is perfectly fine.
 
Just a little side note I forgot to mention on a previous post. Iron Man is currently near broke and hasn't touched a drink in a while. He is a real interesting character when given the chance. Just putting that out there. 
Edited by cody1984
@LB70145 said:

@cody1984: I didn't call you crazy. When I said the r-word I meant when you said retarded. You don't have to go around using hate speech. The r-word is just as bad as any racial slur.   Again, I try to have civil confrontations and share knowledge with people on these forums. Some people just can't handle that, especially when they respond with hate speech and calling people names. I've worked with many patients that are always on the defensive. You are acting in the same fashion. I did not aim to insult you at all.  I apologize if you take any of my remarks, present and past, personally. Seriously, when you react to people in the future, whether its on the forums or in real life, look at what is being said and think before acting. This could have been a exchange of knowledge but instead devolved into insults fueled by ignorance and the over zealous defense on one's favorite character. I am giving advice and met by accusations. There have been misconceptions between opinion and fact, on both sides. Hopefully people are able to be more understanding of your behavior than I. I proved the Punisher is insane using my observations. Like or not, they are there for anyone to read. If truly like the character this much, then honor that with good counter-argument. Anyone can make contentions against my observations, in fact I welcome that. However, you have only proved you love this character. That's great. But there are going to be people who read my arguments. Some will agree and some won't. In the end, I set out to make my observations and succeeded. Whether you call me an ass or accuse me of calling you crazy is irrelevant. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to. I would really like to see someone prove to me Frank is sane/not have PTSD. Disagreeing with someone is perfectly fine. Just a little side note I forgot to mention on a previous post. Iron Man is currently near broke and hasn't touched a drink in a while. He is a real interesting character when given the chance. Just putting that out there. 

Oh god get over yourself and your nonsense already.  Trying to label me insane and acting like your a shrink now is not impressing me in the least.  All it is doing is making you look like an idiot.  Your continued whining and trying to pass off your opinion as facts is annoying and your long winded writing about how you don't like me talking to you like I do is pathetic.  You haven't been able to prove anything you said and now are going on about how you feel which I could care less about and have stated several times.  Now with that said you have failed in virtually every way possible to try pass your opinion as fact maybe you'll take the hint and either provide a comment with some proof that Frank Castle is insane which you claim as fact instead of just continuing to try and pass your opinion as fact as your trying to do so even now.  For the record to I gave you reasons why I believe Frank doesn't have PTSD which you ignored and said they were opinions.  Which they were just like yours.  So enough is enough already unless you provide some scans showing that Frank has been labeled insane you are just giving an opinion on the matter.  Your opinion isn't fact its just an opinion.  As I stated before if you said it was your opinion that the Punisher is insane I wouldn't have problem with that.  I haven't responded to all the comments on here from people who view the Punisher as insane because they just gave an opinion.  They didn't state there opinion was fact they said it was there opinion unlike you.  I know that goes completely over your head since you have been unable to grasp that this entire time.       
 
P.S. I could give a s*** less about Iron Man.     
Edited by LB70145
  @cody1984:  I highly doubt you are taking this all that seriously anyway. Others have already posted several scans of Punisher being absolutely pathetic and irrational. Even if I did put up a scan, you would find some way to say its wrong even though its staring you in the face, like you did with others.  
  
Like this...
@cody1984 said: 

@War Killer said: 

To me, Steve Rogers put it best when it comes to the Punisher...
Captain America is a complete moron and The Punisher was was way out of character during the civil war.

  
or this...
@cody1984 said: 

@cmaprice said: 



The Punisher is written way out of character again by an idiot.  

  

And will winning this argument make you feel superior as a person or something? Is it going to make you feel better? Either way, you are going to like the Punisher and I will still think he is insane based on my factual observations. Oh and if it makes you feel any better, yes Punisher being insane is my opinion. However, my opinion is being supported by some solid evidence. Its like arguing evolution with a creationist right now. Or arguing global warming with a oil executive...  
If he took the death of his family well he wouldn't be out there killing. Killing in the name of your murdered family is not rational nor logical. The pain doesn't go away and it doesn't make him feel better. That's why he is so emotionally dead. Another definition of insanity is doing the same action over and over hoping for different results each time (i.e. senselessness, foolhardiness, defect in reason). Frank kills criminals for what? Revenge? Personal Glory? Healing his psychological trauma? Making the world a better place? What is it truly? In the end killing does one thing. Watching him kill people evokes the same reaction as a T-800 killing someone. He is no more than a robot (or half robot in the case of Franken-Castle) killing for the sake of killing. He might as well be a Deathlok soldier programmed to kill criminals. His murders in the name of justice only perpetuate the injustice he is fighting. Why? He is no different than they are.
 
Watch your basic revenge movie and you know who the Punisher is. The difference though, is in those movies the person seeking revenge either realizes revenge is not the answer, dies, or gets in trouble for what they did. Law Abiding Citizen, Avatar the Last Airbender, The Lion King, The Last Samurai, Man on Fire, Fearless, Gran Torino, V for Vendetta, Inglorious Basterds, Kill Bill, Gladiator, The Count of Monte Cristo, Hamlet, and Most Mel Gibson films are all revenge movies that are examples of this. In Fact, John Creasy (Man on Fire) is a better Punisher than Frank. The difference, John accepts his fate where Frank is still trying to figure out what his fate should be. 
  
Also, you want me to show he has PTSD again. Sure, since you didn't read it last time here it is again.  

1. Did he experience traumatic events? Yes.  
2. Does he have flashbacks to those events? Yes. 
3. Emotional Numbing? Yes.  
4. Increased responses (i.e. anger issues, hypervigilance )? Yes.  
5. Lasts for more than 1 month? Yes.  
6. Does the experience cause impairment? Yes. 
 
Here's the link provided from where I volunteer.
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/handouts-pdf/handout_What_is_PTSD.pdf  
 
You call this a good argument against Frank not having PTSD? It doesn't even make sense. I'll let clarify if you would like.

  @cody1984 said: 
He doesn't suffer from PTSD.  Getting shoved in locker doesn't cause PTSD.  People who believe that never met anyone actually suffering from PTSD why you think this is f****** beyond me.  The only way I can see some getting diagnosed with PTSD because they were shoved in a locker is because there where in million dollar lawsuit.  
 
And where are you getting this notion that I am calling you insane? I am calling your favorite character insane. How does that turn into calling you insane? Please find where I say this. Again, taking this a bit personally much? You have insulted several characters I like, you don't see me taking it personally. I know that some people have different tastes than I, maybe you should accept that as well.

 The most hilarious thing is that you gave me the best evidence to show that he is at least a sociopath/psychotic. 

@cody1984 said: 
The War was coming to an end and the General was even telling him they were going home as soon as they closed the base.  Frank's reasons weren't for saving lives it was because he was delaying the war ending for him as long as he could.  Frank not letting the base be closed costs the lives of every man posted at Valley Forge.  This was talked about heavily in the "Valley Forge" Story arc.  

Posted by cody1984
@LB70145 said:
  @cody1984:  I highly doubt you are taking this all that seriously anyway. Others have already posted several scans of Punisher being absolutely pathetic and irrational. Even if I did put up a scan, you would find some way to say its wrong even though its staring you in the face, like you did with others.  
  
Like this...
@cody1984 said: 
@War Killer said: 
To me, Steve Rogers put it best when it comes to the Punisher...
Captain America is a complete moron and The Punisher was was way out of character during the civil war.
  
or this...
@cody1984 said: 
@cmaprice said: 



The Punisher is written way out of character again by an idiot.  
  

And will winning this argument make you feel superior as a person or something? Is it going to make you feel better? Either way, you are going to like the Punisher and I will still think he is insane based on my factual observations. Oh and if it makes you feel any better, yes Punisher being insane is my opinion. However, my opinion is being supported by some solid evidence. Its like arguing evolution with a creationist right now. Or arguing global warming with a oil executive...
 
If he took the death of his family well he wouldn't be out there killing. Killing in the name of your murdered family is not rational nor logical. The pain doesn't go away and it doesn't make him feel better. That's why he is so emotionally dead. Another definition of insanity is doing the same action over and over hoping for different results each time (i.e. senselessness, foolhardiness, defect in reason). Frank kills criminals for what? Revenge? Personal Glory? Healing his psychological trauma? Making the world a better place? What is it truly? In the end killing does one thing. Watching him kill people evokes the same reaction as a T-800 killing someone. He is no more than a robot (or half robot in the case of Franken-Castle) killing for the sake of killing. He might as well be a Deathlok soldier programmed to kill criminals. His murders in the name of justice only perpetuate the injustice he is fighting. Why? He is no different than they are.
 
Watch your basic revenge movie and you know who the Punisher is. The difference though, is in those movies the person seeking revenge either realizes revenge is not the answer, dies, or gets in trouble for what they did. Law Abiding Citizen, Avatar the Last Airbender, The Lion King, The Last Samurai, Man on Fire, Fearless, Gran Torino, V for Vendetta, Inglorious Basterds, Kill Bill, Gladiator, The Count of Monte Cristo, Hamlet, and Most Mel Gibson films are all revenge movies that are examples of this. In Fact, John Creasy (Man on Fire) is a better Punisher than Frank. The difference, John accepts his fate where Frank is still trying to figure out what his fate should be. 
  
Also, you want me to show he has PTSD again. Sure, since you didn't read it last time here it is again.  

1. Did he experience traumatic events? Yes.  
2. Does he have flashbacks to those events? Yes. 
3. Emotional Numbing? Yes.  
4. Increased responses (i.e. anger issues, hypervigilance )? Yes.  
5. Lasts for more than 1 month? Yes.  
6. Does the experience cause impairment? Yes. 
 
Here's the link provided from where I volunteer.
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/handouts-pdf/handout_What_is_PTSD.pdf  
 
You call this a good argument against Frank not having PTSD? It doesn't even make sense. I'll let clarify if you would like.

  @cody1984 said: 
He doesn't suffer from PTSD.  Getting shoved in locker doesn't cause PTSD.  People who believe that never met anyone actually suffering from PTSD why you think this is f****** beyond me.  The only way I can see some getting diagnosed with PTSD because they were shoved in a locker is because there where in million dollar lawsuit.  
 
And where are you getting this notion that I am calling you insane? I am calling your favorite character insane. How does that turn into calling you insane?
 
 The most hilarious thing is that you gave me the best evidence to show that he is at least a sociopath/psychotic. 

@cody1984 said: 
The War was coming to an end and the General was even telling him they were going home as soon as they closed the base.  Frank's reasons weren't for saving lives it was because he was delaying the war ending for him as long as he could.  Frank not letting the base be closed costs the lives of every man posted at Valley Forge.  This was talked about heavily in the "Valley Forge" Story arc.  

 
Before you stated I needed to calm down because I was taking this to seriously now your stating I'm not taking this seriously?  Can't make up your mind on anything can you?  After all if you did that you'd have to admit your wrong at times.   
 
Your observations do not prove for a fact that he is insane as I've said several times now they are just your opinions nothing more nothing less.   
 
Your argument that he is no different then the people he kills is flat out BS.  The Punisher has never run a sex slavery ring, never made kiddy porn, and hasn't committed canabalism.  So no the Punisher is not the same as the people he kills and he is better than the people he kills.   
 
 By the way Jackass I did read it the first time you even commented on it now your stating I didn't read it then you comment on the reply I gave you about me not believing he had PTSD?  Wow you are an idiot.   
  
Your implying I'm nuts since I don't agree with you.  Probably the same way you try to label others as nuts who disagree with you whether directly or indirectly. 
 
As far Born is concerned the guy wanted to stay in Vietnam and the General did threaten him.  When you get deployed several times you can end up not wanting to leave and when you do come home you want to go back.  That doesn't make the people who experience that insane since that is well known to happen to troops who have been to combat several times.  As far as him killing the officer go he was threatened and the General was a complete moron.  I'm not saying Frank setting him up to die was a good thing but its not proof of insanity.  
Edited by LB70145
@cody1984: I'm saying you are not taking this seriously because of the fact you have not given any evidence against my observations, other than that I am wrong according to you. Your focusing of anger on me has yet to yield anything but denial on your end. Counter-evidence would be nice. I say you take this too personally not seriously. Once I am given some sufficient argument. I might even concede, that's up to you. I also told you to calm down because you were just writing angrily, the only thing you didn't do was write in all caps. 
 
Oh again, if it makes you feel better. When I talked about your atrocious grammar from the first few posts, yes I was wrong to message back with one error in my own message. See, I am apologizing and saying I'm wrong about that. However, it doesn't excuse your continued bad grammar. I only point out the grammar because its hard to discuss things when people are not paying attention to what they write. I know, I know I missed one word. Granted, in anger everyone writes things in haste. Just proof read before posting please. If not now, but in the future. There might be people worse than me out there.
 
Yeah Punisher may not run sex rings, have child porn or eat people. He kills people. Killers are killers. Frank himself kills people for having killed people. If he saw himself on the street offing people what would he do? Would he wait for context? Or see killing and kill the killer? Its interesting to think about. Mankind has tried to justify killing for centuries. Mankind has failed to come up with any good ones. Frank barely has a reason for killing people anyway, he sees his version of good and bad. He proceeds to shoot anyone under his Terminator vision and walk away. Well, he walks away after taking any money and weapons they had.
 
Still no anti-PTSD arguments, didn't think so. Oh I see you called me a new name. That's definitely helping your argument. Keep them coming. It's easy to insult someone, but not insulting someone is a lot easier.
 
I am not implying your nuts. I am not insulting you in anyway. Again the whole taking this too personally thing comes to mind. I don't label anyone for disagreeing with me. You are assuming that. I don't know how accusing me and calling me names has anything to do with the Punisher. This is the first time you have ever interacted with me. What do you know about me other than my words shared with you? You don't know anything about me. I don't assume anything about you other than the fact that the Punisher is your favorite character. Anything you think about me is a massive assumption. However, think whatever you want about me. Whatever makes you feel better, I am just trying to share some knowledge and have a decent conversation.
 
Your last paragraph is also an argument in favor of Frank having PTSD. I see this at the VA Hospital all the time. By the way your last paragraph is actually pretty decent argument. If you approach the rest of this in the same way, we might be making some progress. At least you understand that Frank is not man without faults.
 
PTSD doesn't make one insane. PTSD is part of a whole. 
 
Schizophrenia + Paranoia + Sociopathic Tendencies + Antisocial Behavior + PTSD = Insanity  
Insanity ≠ Schizophrenia 
Insanity ≠ Paranoia 
Insanity ≠ Sociopathic Tendencies
Insanity ≠ Antisocial Behavior

Insanity ≠ PTSD 

Edited by cody1984
@LB70145 said:

@cody1984: I'm saying you are not taking this seriously because of the fact you have not given any evidence against my observations, other than that I am wrong according to you. Your focusing of anger on me has yet to yield anything but denial on your end. Counter-evidence would be nice. I say you take this too personally not seriously. Once I am given some sufficient argument. I might even concede, that's up to you. I also told you to calm down because you were just writing angrily, the only thing you didn't do was write in all caps. 
 
Oh again, if it makes you feel better. When I talked about your atrocious grammar from the first few posts, yes I was wrong to message back with one error in my own message. See, I am apologizing and saying I'm wrong about that. However, it doesn't excuse your continued bad grammar. I only point out the grammar because its hard to discuss things when people are not paying attention to what they write. I know, I know I missed one word. Granted, in anger everyone writes things in haste. Just proof read before posting please. If not now, but in the future. There might be people worse than me out there.
 
Yeah Punisher may not run sex rings, have child porn or eat people. He kills people. Killers are killers. Frank himself kills people for having killed people. If he saw himself on the street offing people what would he do? Would he wait for context? Or see killing and kill the killer? Its interesting to think about. Mankind has tried to justify killing for centuries. Mankind has failed to come up with any good ones. Frank barely has a reason for killing people anyway, he sees his version of good and bad. He proceeds to shoot anyone under his Terminator vision and walk away. Well, he walks away after taking any money and weapons they had.
 
Still no anti-PTSD arguments, didn't think so. Oh I see you called me a new name. That's definitely helping your argument. Keep them coming. It's easy to insult someone, but not insulting someone is a lot easier.
 
I am not implying your nuts. I am not insulting you in anyway. Again the whole taking this too personally thing comes to mind. I don't label anyone for disagreeing with me. You are assuming that. I don't know how accusing me and calling me names has anything to do with the Punisher. This is the first time you have ever interacted with me. What do you know about me other than my words shared with you? You don't know anything about me. I don't assume anything about you other than the fact that the Punisher is your favorite character. Anything you think about me is a massive assumption. However, think whatever you want about me. Whatever makes you feel better, I am just trying to share some knowledge and have a decent conversation.
 
Your last paragraph is also an argument in favor of Frank having PTSD. I see this at the VA Hospital all the time. By the way your last paragraph is actually pretty decent argument. If you approach the rest of this in the same way, we might be making some progress. At least you understand that Frank is not man without faults.
 
PTSD doesn't make one insane. PTSD is part of a whole. 
 
Schizophrenia + Paranoia + Sociopathic Tendencies + Antisocial Behavior + PTSD = Insanity  
Insanity ≠ Schizophrenia 
Insanity ≠ Paranoia 
Insanity ≠ Sociopathic Tendencies
Insanity ≠ Antisocial Behavior

Insanity ≠ PTSD 

 

God you are dense.  Look I'm going to explain this one more time since it's become a broken record.  You have tried stating repeatedly that Frank Castle being insane is a fact and not your own opinion.  If you would've stated I believe he is insane we wouldn't be going back and forth like this.   
 
I've continued to state I don't give a s*** how you feel.  Why you keep going on and on about your feelings is again quite pathetic because I don't know you the chances are extremely high we will never meet each other in person so I could honestly care less if you feel insulted or not.  If it really bothers you that bad why do you keep posting?   
 
Going on and on about my grammar just makes you look like a dick.  Especially when you make grammar mistakes of your own and after posting several messages later that you were wrong about that just makes you look stupid.  You should have just stated something like "all right you got me I was wrong there" right after I pointed that out to you or have just dropped it altogether.  Your continued whining about my grammar from a few posts ago comes off as you being a little bitch. 
 
Violence and killing can be justified.  The whole violence doesn't solve anything argument is juvenile since violence is how you solve things when all else fails.  Yes I said that and yes I stand by that as well.  Before you ask no I don't believe violence should be used first in the real world.  Now since we are talking about a comic book character that lives in a world where mass murdering super villains and criminals break out of jail within a matter of days and are beyond all hope yes Frank's method is the correct one.  If Peter Parker would've killed Norman Osborn there would've been no Dark Reign.  If Superheroes dealt with their villains like Frank does there would be no Joker still running around killing people, no Loki screwing up the world for his own amusement, and no Hydra giving everyone problems.  I know you won't get that no matter how many times you read it since you are extremely dense.      
 
Yes you have been trying to imply I'm nuts.  Your whole bullshit patient remarks several comments back implied that heavily.   
 
Also we are not having a decent conversation.  Your whining to me repeatedly how you feel and I'm cutting you up because I find it pathetic. 
 
Someone being worried about going back home after being deployed several times doesn't mean they have PTSD.  They simply get used to being deployed and going home ends up big change for them.  Once they get home and are settled for a month the vast majority of them are fine.  The same way people get scared about going into the military because that is a big change to them.   

Posted by Fetts

He'd go suicide. 

Posted by LB70145
@cody1984:  Again no counter evidence? Didn't think so.
 
I keep posting because its entertaining see a Punisher fan boy just make himself look bad. That and the fact that you aren't listening. Again, the only reason I have been mentioning the whole insulting thing, is that you are going to get in trouble if you continue. None of your insults are really that affecting. I'll become impressed if you actually specialize some insults just for me.
 
Violence doesn't solve anything is juvenile? I think this is the most hilarious thing said so far other than the Punisher is a sane person. I guess you don't like comics that much. If villains were dead, who would heroes fight? Uninteresting criminals. If you want to go back to the age before super villains maybe you should stick to mister white boots. I think the simpler writing appeals to you anyway.  I understand that in a universe where everyone is Frank Castle, the comic universe would be boring. No conflict, no sense of differentiation, no real story. Yeah I understand. But doesn't sound like good comics. Again, when was the last time Punisher was good? Ennis, because he put him in his own little universe. 616 Punisher is a joke. No one takes him seriously, thus as you have claimed before he has been written inconsistently. People were trying to make him work. The effort is being wasted making what, a D-list character? C-list? Either way, not interesting in any way. That's why they made him into Frankenstein. It was mildly entertaining on a novelty level. Other than that, making him a Promethean still resulted in some lame comics. No Joker means some lame Batman comics, Loki has died before and recently but he will always come back, Norman Osborn did die and he was retconned back which people didn't like. Norman Osborn being dead would just mean someone else would have been in charge of Dark Reign.
 
No, I'm not saying your crazy. I work in a Hospital for Veterans. I know what crazy is. You are just an angry guy who likes the Punisher. I would guess teenager, but that doesn't matter. I am not going to start insulting you because while it would be easy, I am not sinking to your level. You will never understand that considering who your favorite character is.
 
And yes, you are ruining any chances for a decent conversation. Again if it really makes you feel better go for it. 
 
I guess the Punisher is someone you really want to be in real life, but I guess if belittling people on forums is how you fight injustice in the world. Well, that speaks for itself.
Edited by cody1984
@LB70145 said:

@cody1984:  Again no counter evidence? Didn't think so. I keep posting because its entertaining see a Punisher fan boy just make himself look bad. That and the fact that you aren't listening. Again, the only reason I have been mentioning the whole insulting thing, is that you are going to get in trouble if you continue. None of your insults are really that affecting. I'll become impressed if you actually specialize some insults just for me. Violence doesn't solve anything is juvenile? I think this is the most hilarious thing said so far other than the Punisher is a sane person. I guess you don't like comics that much. If villains were dead, who would heroes fight? Uninteresting criminals. If you want to go back to the age before super villains maybe you should stick to mister white boots. I think the simpler writing appeals to you anyway.  I understand that in a universe where everyone is Frank Castle, the comic universe would be boring. No conflict, no sense of differentiation, no real story. Yeah I understand. But doesn't sound like good comics. Again, when was the last time Punisher was good? Ennis, because he put him in his own little universe. 616 Punisher is a joke. No one takes him seriously, thus as you have claimed before he has been written inconsistently. People were trying to make him work. The effort is being wasted making what, a D-list character? C-list? Either way, not interesting in any way. That's why they made him into Frankenstein. It was mildly entertaining on a novelty level. Other than that, making him a Promethean still resulted in some lame comics. No Joker means some lame Batman comics, Loki has died before and recently but he will always come back, Norman Osborn did die and he was retconned back which people didn't like. Norman Osborn being dead would just mean someone else would have been in charge of Dark Reign. No, I'm not saying your crazy. I work in a Hospital for Veterans. I know what crazy is. You are just an angry guy who likes the Punisher. I would guess teenager, but that doesn't matter. I am not going to start insulting you because while it would be easy, I am not sinking to your level. You will never understand that considering who your favorite character is. And yes, you are ruining any chances for a decent conversation. Again if it really makes you feel better go for it.  I guess the Punisher is someone you really want to be in real life, but I guess if belittling people on forums is how you fight injustice in the world. Well, that speaks for itself.

What counter evidence do I need exactly?  Your the one claiming that its a fact Frank is insane not me.  The burden of proof is on you since you are the one making the claim.  If you want to contact the moderators go ahead if you post again on here replying to me I will contact them and whatever happens happens.  In fact as soon as I'm done posting this message I'll contact a moderator myself since this topic has been ruined.  
 
For the record violence does solve things.  It solved the issue of slavery in America during the civil war, it stopped the holocaust which couldn't be solved any other way but through violence, and it solved the problem other people in Asia had with Japan during WW2 when they were getting conquered and killed by the Japanese.  So yes violence does solve problems at times the fact that you think otherwise doesn't surprise me.   
 
I didn't say the company that decided to have everyone deal with problems like Frank Castle would stay in business in fact I've said the opposite in other posts in my time here on comicvine.  I made that comment because logic would dictate that some of the so called heroes would waste the villains they fight.       
  
You possibly working in VA hospital as a janitor doesn't impress me in the least nor does your continued useless replies.  The fact that you need to continue making them is pathetic. 
Posted by RedHood_DCU
@Wolfthomas: haha i remember that, "Welcome Back Frank" was really good!
Edited by kev17
@LB70145
Dude, your trying to psychoanalyse(sorry if i mispelt that) a comic book character. Hes not real. 
You said hes a one dimensional character, i disagree with that because hes one of my favourite characters, but if you dont like him, why do you spend so much time writing a thesis on him? 
I can enjoy a character for what he is and sum up my own opinions on him, but im not gonna write a paper on him.  

So heres my opinion for what its worth.
he wouldnt do it in the first place. Castle doesnt make mistakes. Hes not reckless, he can plan to avoid the situation. If he was a psycho he would not take such a precaution. 

looking back over this conversation i realize how pointless it is. Theres different people with different opinions, But for once and for all, Frank Castle does not kill innocents. Just because he does kill criminals does not mean hes jeffrey dahmer. I havent seen anybody make a post like this on several other pages, including high powered superheroes with powers much more dangerous than a gun. 
 
Edited by kev17
@Pokeysteve
Yeah this was killing an innocent,, and it proves that frank castle is in love with war, but it doesnt neccesarily mean he'll kill innocent civilians with impunity. I dont know whether it can be defined as morality, but frank castle would not do that, for several reasons. 
His war would end for one thing. Theyd have to arrest  him. And possibly more important, hes an excellent tactician and does not make mistakes.
Edited by Meowshi

He'd probably to justify it.  I remember when those criminals wanted to become heroes, and were trying to help out the anti-registration side during Civil War.  What does Frank do?  He just walks in and kills them.  What annoyed me is that Captain America, Spider-Man, and all these other heroes were in the room, and they didn't do anything!  They didn't have him arrested, they didn't detain him, they barely even responded.  They just had Luke Cage punch him a few times and sent him on his way.  That's his "punishment" for killing men in cold blood in front of these "great heroes". 
 
Awful, awful writing.
 
@Pokeysteve said:




@LB70145 said: 

I want to say that the Punisher has shot/killed innocents before. His policy is that if he does kill an innocent he will do the time in jail for it.

I've read this somewhere as well. I think it has happened and he's turned himself in. 
Ultimate Punisher looks ridiculous. I've noticed when written correctly, Castle is an amazing tactile planner. People thinks he's all about guns and shooting but Ennis took him deeper than that. You get in his head and he's always thinking of scenarios. 

And I'd be willing to bet Castle has saved more lives than Cap. 
You'd be wrong.  Punisher stops street crimes.  Captain America saves the fucking world.  His contributions in WW2 are also more impressive than the Punisher's military history.   
Edited by LB70145
@cody1984: I would really like to see what the mods have to say about this actually. Yes, these responses went about 3 responses too long. By the way, Mods aren't here to referee arguments. They are here to keep the site running well and to create community. People are going to disagree, it just happens
 
Slavery wasn't abolished through war. Slavery was abolished because laws were made to systematically make it illegal. Legislators ended Slavery not soldiers. Millions of people just had to die before the law could be accepted. And just because slavery ended didn't mean violence against former slaves and their descendants did not occur. There is still racism today.
 
War didn't stop the holocaust. The holocaust still happened and millions of Jewish people were killed and millions more had ruined lives. The U.S. didn't even know the holocaust was even happening. 
 
Yes, the U.S. involvement helped bring an end to WW2 but war doesn't fix countries. War brings about a cycle of violence. Yes, the peoples of Asia were no longer attacked by the Japanese. But several little wars and disputes happened all over Asia after WW2. They still continue to this day in fact. Taking Japan out of Korea and Vietnam led to the Korean War and Vietnam War respectively. The war just redirected the violence from one people to another. Look at the Philippines (decimated and left with massive debt), Indonesia (tribal conflict), China (dis-unified), Laos (tribal conflict), Malaysia (burned t the ground), Cambodia (burned to the ground) and Taiwan (decimated). Chaos was unleashed in Eastern Asia. In fact, the only people that were helped by the U.S. was Japan. The U.S. poured millions of dollars into rebuilding Japan and Japan only. East Asian countries suffered from more violence and death after WW2 because violence was used to end it. I can continue if you would like.
 
Did violence abolish Slavery? No Legislators did that. Did violence stop the holocaust? No the holocaust still happened. Did violence end conflict in Asia? No, not only did it not stop conflict, there is still conflict in Asia. So yeah, violence hasn't solved anything. Violence only creates more problems. I would really like to see an example of violence being used to solve a problem. War is not a Street Fight.
 
Also, just an aside. I work at a VA Hospital as a volunteer. My Uncle served this country. He and I go around to some of the new patients and just talk to them. Yeah, not a janitor. Just doing what I can to give comfort and appreciation to people who served this country. 
Edited by cody1984
@LB70145 said:

@cody1984: I would really like to see what the mods have to say about this actually. Yes, these responses went about 3 responses too long. By the way, Mods aren't here to referee arguments. They are here to keep the site running well and to create community. People are going to disagree, it just happens Slavery wasn't abolished through war. Slavery was abolished because laws were made to systematically make it illegal. Legislators ended Slavery not soldiers. Millions of people just had to die before the law could be accepted. And just because slavery ended didn't mean violence against former slaves and their descendants did not occur. There is still racism today. War didn't stop the holocaust. The holocaust still happened and millions of Jewish people were killed and millions more had ruined lives. The U.S. didn't even know the holocaust was even happening.  Yes, the U.S. involvement helped bring an end to WW2 but war doesn't fix countries. War brings about a cycle of violence. Yes, the peoples of Asia were no longer attacked by the Japanese. But several little wars and disputes happened all over Asia after WW2. They still continue to this day in fact. Taking Japan out of Korea and Vietnam led to the Korean War and Vietnam War respectively. The war just redirected the violence from one people to another. Look at the Philippines (decimated and left with massive debt), Indonesia (tribal conflict), China (dis-unified), Laos (tribal conflict), Malaysia (burned t the ground), Cambodia (burned to the ground) and Taiwan (decimated). Chaos was unleashed in Eastern Asia. In fact, the only people that were helped by the U.S. was Japan. The U.S. poured millions of dollars into rebuilding Japan and Japan only. East Asian countries suffered from more violence and death after WW2 because violence was used to end it. I can continue if you would like. Did violence abolish Slavery? No Legislators did that. Did violence stop the holocaust? No the holocaust still happened. Did violence end conflict in Asia? No, not only did it not stop conflict, there is still conflict in Asia. So yeah, violence hasn't solved anything. Violence only creates more problems. I would really like to see an example of violence being used to solve a problem. War is not a Street Fight. Also, just an aside. I work at a VA Hospital as a volunteer. My Uncle served this country. He and I go around to some of the new patients and just talk to them. Yeah, not a janitor. Just doing what I can to give comfort and appreciation to people who served this country. 

As far the mods go I did send one a message and either the mod didn't care or hasn't check it out either way this getting beyond stupid.  This is my last response to you on this topic because this has gone on to long. 
 
The U.S. Civil War was fought mainly over the issue of slavery.  If the North didn't win they wouldn't have been able to pass the legislation to make slavery illegal so yes violence did solve that dispute.  Since the South wouldn't go along with abolishing slavery the Southern States abandoned the Union and created the confederacy.  Your argument that slavery in the United States wasn't solved by war is idiotic.  Historians don't agree with you at all.    
 
War stopped the holocaust from continuing saving the lives of Jews and others who would've been killed otherwise if the Nazis weren't stopped.   
 
The wars and disputes that happened in Asia afterward were due to colonial powers losing possession of there former colonies and the spread of communism.  The violence of World War 2 didn't breed more problems then they already were unless you are arguing the United States should have helped Europe keep imperialism around?  That is a very racist route to go as to why there was so many problems in former colonials someone else tried to present that argument to me before and quite frankly its really pathetic.    
Posted by slvrwolfang
@cody1984 said:
@LB70145 said:

@cody1984: I would really like to see what the mods have to say about this actually. Yes, these responses went about 3 responses too long. By the way, Mods aren't here to referee arguments. They are here to keep the site running well and to create community. People are going to disagree, it just happens Slavery wasn't abolished through war. Slavery was abolished because laws were made to systematically make it illegal. Legislators ended Slavery not soldiers. Millions of people just had to die before the law could be accepted. And just because slavery ended didn't mean violence against former slaves and their descendants did not occur. There is still racism today. War didn't stop the holocaust. The holocaust still happened and millions of Jewish people were killed and millions more had ruined lives. The U.S. didn't even know the holocaust was even happening.  Yes, the U.S. involvement helped bring an end to WW2 but war doesn't fix countries. War brings about a cycle of violence. Yes, the peoples of Asia were no longer attacked by the Japanese. But several little wars and disputes happened all over Asia after WW2. They still continue to this day in fact. Taking Japan out of Korea and Vietnam led to the Korean War and Vietnam War respectively. The war just redirected the violence from one people to another. Look at the Philippines (decimated and left with massive debt), Indonesia (tribal conflict), China (dis-unified), Laos (tribal conflict), Malaysia (burned t the ground), Cambodia (burned to the ground) and Taiwan (decimated). Chaos was unleashed in Eastern Asia. In fact, the only people that were helped by the U.S. was Japan. The U.S. poured millions of dollars into rebuilding Japan and Japan only. East Asian countries suffered from more violence and death after WW2 because violence was used to end it. I can continue if you would like. Did violence abolish Slavery? No Legislators did that. Did violence stop the holocaust? No the holocaust still happened. Did violence end conflict in Asia? No, not only did it not stop conflict, there is still conflict in Asia. So yeah, violence hasn't solved anything. Violence only creates more problems. I would really like to see an example of violence being used to solve a problem. War is not a Street Fight. Also, just an aside. I work at a VA Hospital as a volunteer. My Uncle served this country. He and I go around to some of the new patients and just talk to them. Yeah, not a janitor. Just doing what I can to give comfort and appreciation to people who served this country. 

As far the mods go I did send one a message and either the mod didn't care or hasn't check it out either way this getting beyond stupid.  This is my last response to you on this topic because this has gone on to long.  The U.S. Civil War was fought mainly over the issue of slavery.  If the North didn't win they wouldn't have been able to pass the legislation to make slavery illegal so yes violence did solve that dispute.  Since the South wouldn't go along with abolishing slavery the Southern States abandoned the Union and created the confederacy.  Your argument that slavery in the United States wasn't solved by war is idiotic.  Historians don't agree with you at all.     War stopped the holocaust from continuing saving the lives of Jews and others who would've been killed otherwise if the Nazis weren't stopped.    The wars and disputes that happened in Asia afterward were due to colonial powers losing possession of there former colonies and the spread of communism.  The violence of World War 2 didn't breed more problems then they already were unless you are arguing the United States should have helped Europe keep imperialism around?  That is a very racist route to go as to why there was so many problems in former colonials someone else tried to present that argument to me before and quite frankly its really pathetic.    
I know this is not related to the main topic of this forum but I feel you need to brush up on your Asian history.  The only instance where a Western power wanted to keep control of a former colony was Vietnam.  The rest of Southeast Asia was suddenly thrown into anarchy because the Imperial governments were chased out and there was no native government set up to take their place.  I do not think LB70145 was suggesting the Imperialist powers of the West take back their colonies.  Japan was an Eastern Imperial power (trying to imitate the West) and they are the reason Korea was thrown into chaos.  However, as LB70145 pointed out that the US only helped to rebuild Japan.  I believe they were trying to suggest the US assist all of the nations they helped to destroy on their path to VJ Day. 
But your American History needs some work too.  The Civil War was fought to keep our Union unified.  Yes, slavery played it's part.  But it's easy to explain to young children that the war was fought over slavery. Yet, when one ages, economics is more easily understood.  The Southern States were seeking independence form the North due to economics.  They were being burdened by the Industrial North and wanted to trade their cotton and other agricultural goods directly to Europe without Yankee interference.  This is the main cause of the war.  States wished to secede from the Union to be better but the rest of the country felt this was unconstitutional and fought back.  What LB70145 was trying to point out was that it was not the cannons and guns that ended slavery.  It was the laws based during the violence that outlawed it. 
It's also interesting you say war stopped the Holocaust.  Not only does your Asian and American History need to be improved, so does your European History.  Even History Channel has proven that the war was a perfect cover for the camps.  There was so much going on on the battle fields that intelligence agencies didn't bother to look for a genocide hidden under their noses.  Yes, when the Nazis were defeated the Holocaust ended but the Russians took over half of Europe.  Look into how that went for everyone. Try googling the Cold War or the Iron Curtain or Stalin.  You'll see what the violence of WWII led to in Europe. 
I believe all LB70145 is trying to point out is that violence doesn't end.  It transforms itself into another form of violence, or violence against different peoples.  I think they are trying to say that violence doesn't solve problems because violence just begets more violence.  
Coming back to the main topic, yes the Punisher is insane.  Any mental health professional could find a number of issues he should be medicated or in therapy for.  If the Punisher ever did harm an innocent person I feel he should be tried under American law.  Hopefully this would reinforce to him that he is not above our law, as he acts, but is just as subject to it as every other person in the US.  Even if Frank does not understand that he is subject to the law, at least he would be locked up (or killed, depending on the state and federal offences filed) if found guilty.  But knowing Frank it wouldn't be much of a trial because he would probably confess.
Edited by cody1984
@slvrwolfang said:

@cody1984 said: 

As far the mods go I did send one a message and either the mod didn't care or hasn't check it out either way this getting beyond stupid.  This is my last response to you on this topic because this has gone on to long.  The U.S. Civil War was fought mainly over the issue of slavery.  If the North didn't win they wouldn't have been able to pass the legislation to make slavery illegal so yes violence did solve that dispute.  Since the South wouldn't go along with abolishing slavery the Southern States abandoned the Union and created the confederacy.  Your argument that slavery in the United States wasn't solved by war is idiotic.  Historians don't agree with you at all.     War stopped the holocaust from continuing saving the lives of Jews and others who would've been killed otherwise if the Nazis weren't stopped.    The wars and disputes that happened in Asia afterward were due to colonial powers losing possession of there former colonies and the spread of communism.  The violence of World War 2 didn't breed more problems then they already were unless you are arguing the United States should have helped Europe keep imperialism around?  That is a very racist route to go as to why there was so many problems in former colonials someone else tried to present that argument to me before and quite frankly its really pathetic.    
I know this is not related to the main topic of this forum but I feel you need to brush up on your Asian history.  The only instance where a Western power wanted to keep control of a former colony was Vietnam.  The rest of Southeast Asia was suddenly thrown into anarchy because the Imperial governments were chased out and there was no native government set up to take their place.  I do not think LB70145 was suggesting the Imperialist powers of the West take back their colonies.  Japan was an Eastern Imperial power (trying to imitate the West) and they are the reason Korea was thrown into chaos.  However, as LB70145 pointed out that the US only helped to rebuild Japan.  I believe they were trying to suggest the US assist all of the nations they helped to destroy on their path to VJ Day. But your American History needs some work too.  The Civil War was fought to keep our Union unified.  Yes, slavery played it's part.  But it's easy to explain to young children that the war was fought over slavery. Yet, when one ages, economics is more easily understood.  The Southern States were seeking independence form the North due to economics.  They were being burdened by the Industrial North and wanted to trade their cotton and other agricultural goods directly to Europe without Yankee interference.  This is the main cause of the war.  States wished to secede from the Union to be better but the rest of the country felt this was unconstitutional and fought back.  What LB70145 was trying to point out was that it was not the cannons and guns that ended slavery.  It was the laws based during the violence that outlawed it. It's also interesting you say war stopped the Holocaust.  Not only does your Asian and American History need to be improved, so does your European History.  Even History Channel has proven that the war was a perfect cover for the camps.  There was so much going on on the battle fields that intelligence agencies didn't bother to look for a genocide hidden under their noses.  Yes, when the Nazis were defeated the Holocaust ended but the Russians took over half of Europe.  Look into how that went for everyone. Try googling the Cold War or the Iron Curtain or Stalin.  You'll see what the violence of WWII led to in Europe. I believe all LB70145 is trying to point out is that violence doesn't end.  It transforms itself into another form of violence, or violence against different peoples.  I think they are trying to say that violence doesn't solve problems because violence just begets more violence.  Coming back to the main topic, yes the Punisher is insane.  Any mental health professional could find a number of issues he should be medicated or in therapy for.  If the Punisher ever did harm an innocent person I feel he should be tried under American law.  Hopefully this would reinforce to him that he is not above our law, as he acts, but is just as subject to it as every other person in the US.  Even if Frank does not understand that he is subject to the law, at least he would be locked up (or killed, depending on the state and federal offences filed) if found guilty.  But knowing Frank it wouldn't be much of a trial because he would probably confess.
 
Cotton was profitable to the south due to slavery and the invention of the cotton gin which caused slavery to grow more in the South (it was actually starting to die out before the cotton gin was invented) due to increased production, that is a historical fact.  Ending slavery would cost southern plantation owners to lose out on a ton of money and the plantations in the South were the main drivers of the Southern United States wealth.  The Northern states wanted to outlaw slavery which would've hurt the South and the conflict started right after the nation won its independence with the founders split down the middle on the issue.  This split continued with the Missouri compromise.  Even during the Mexican-American war congressmen from the southern states wanted to take what are now northern Mexican States (Tamaulipas, Nuevo León, Coahuila, etc) from Mexico.  Congressmen from the North refused because the Southern States would gain more slave states and more power.  So yes slavery was the main issue for why the civil war was fought.  The legislation banning slavery wouldn't have come to pass unless the North won the civil war since the South wanted to suceed from the Union and had they won they would've done so.  So please brush up on your own history before telling me to do so.     
 
The Iron Curtain is the reason why the cold war happened and was due to the USSR not the Nazis so yes WW2 ended the holocaust because the Nazis couldn't continue there genocide.  The Soviets did cause genocides however them commiting them over eastern Europe happened after WW2.  
 
There's also the matter of the U.S. gaining its independence through war which I could get into the same goes with Asia but quite frankly this is not the place for it.  This is really a topic for the off topic forum and if you wanted to continue this with me do it through PMs because quite frankly this has absolutely nothing at all to do with the topic.    
Edited by LB70145
@cody1984: Yeah, very off topic from the Punisher, but I have to correct your history. 
 
1) The Emancipation Proclamation (the executive order to free slaves) was done in 1863. The Civil War did not end until 1865. I will give you that the 13th Amendment was passed after the war, but that was only to completely abolish slavery in the southern states and any future states. So that disproves your claim that the Union winning freed slaves. The slaves in the South were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation before the North won the war. The 13th amendment along with other legislation eliminated slavery in the Border States and any territories.
 
2) Your claim was poorly worded about the holocaust.
 
  @cody1984 said:

War stopped the holocaust from continuing saving the lives of Jews and others who would've been killed otherwise if the Nazis weren't stopped.   

According to how you worded it, the Holocaust was saving Jews. I know what you mean regardless. The Holocaust technically continued after WW2. Many concentration camps were "liberated" by Soviet Forces and then their use was continued.  These camps contained Jews, POWs, and political prisoners including individuals against communism.  The Holocaust is just the name we give to the particular genocide that occurred at the hands of the Nazis in WW2.  It actually means a burned offering.  Therefore, regardless of who was in those camps until the killing finally stopped the Holocaust continued. 
 
3)I am not arguing the U.S. should have helped Europe should keep their hold on colonies. There are several issues with that claim. Europe didn't lose their claim to those countries, they let them go. Europe didn't want a majority of those countries because they did not  want the debt that would be incurred for repairing them. Look at the Philippines, the U.S. gave them their independence because they did want to fix the country after being screwed up from Japanese occupation. The only country helped at all by the U.S. was Japan, because the U.S. didn't want to utterly destroy their reputation for standing up for weaker nations. The U.S. expected Japan to fix their own reputation with the other countries. The U.S. should have helped other countries that they helped screw up during the liberation of those countries. So no, it's not racist. You are mainly referencing Vietnam with your claim. I didn't say the U.S. should help maintain imperialism, I was saying the U.S. should have helped more countries than they did. 
 
Also, @slvrwolfang said: 

I know this is not related to the main topic of this forum but I feel you need to brush up on your Asian history.  The only instance where a Western power wanted to keep control of a former colony was Vietnam.  The rest of Southeast Asia was suddenly thrown into anarchy because the Imperial governments were chased out and there was no native government set up to take their place.  I do not think LB70145 was suggesting the Imperialist powers of the West take back their colonies.  Japan was an Eastern Imperial power (trying to imitate the West) and they are the reason Korea was thrown into chaos.  However, as LB70145 pointed out that the US only helped to rebuild Japan.  I believe they were trying to suggest the US assist all of the nations they helped to destroy on their path to VJ Day. But your American History needs some work too.  The Civil War was fought to keep our Union unified.  Yes, slavery played it's part.  But it's easy to explain to young children that the war was fought over slavery. Yet, when one ages, economics is more easily understood.  The Southern States were seeking independence form the North due to economics.  They were being burdened by the Industrial North and wanted to trade their cotton and other agricultural goods directly to Europe without Yankee interference.  This is the main cause of the war.  States wished to secede from the Union to be better but the rest of the country felt this was unconstitutional and fought back.  What LB70145 was trying to point out was that it was not the cannons and guns that ended slavery.  It was the laws based during the violence that outlawed it. It's also interesting you say war stopped the Holocaust.  Not only does your Asian and American History need to be improved, so does your European History.  Even History Channel has proven that the war was a perfect cover for the camps.  There was so much going on on the battle fields that intelligence agencies didn't bother to look for a genocide hidden under their noses.  Yes, when the Nazis were defeated the Holocaust ended but the Russians took over half of Europe.  Look into how that went for everyone. Try googling the Cold War or the Iron Curtain or Stalin.  You'll see what the violence of WWII led to in Europe. I believe all LB70145 is trying to point out is that violence doesn't end.  It transforms itself into another form of violence, or violence against different peoples.  I think they are trying to say that violence doesn't solve problems because violence just begets more violence.  Coming back to the main topic, yes the Punisher is insane.  Any mental health professional could find a number of issues he should be medicated or in therapy for.  If the Punisher ever did harm an innocent person I feel he should be tried under American law.  Hopefully this would reinforce to him that he is not above our law, as he acts, but is just as subject to it as every other person in the US.  Even if Frank does not understand that he is subject to the law, at least he would be locked up (or killed, depending on the state and federal offences filed) if found guilty.  But knowing Frank it wouldn't be much of a trial because he would probably confess.

 
What they said... 
 
Either way, your claims of violence solving problems is wrong. That is one of the reasons why Punisher is insane. Violence fixing things is not a logical thought. Again, I still want a good example of violence solving problems.
Posted by slvrwolfang
@cody1984: I'm glad you did some research into what you said.  First, I did state at the beginning of my comment it was off topic.  Since it was clearly stated (twice) that shouldn't be much of an issue.  Second, I am not saying slavery was not an economic incentive for the South.  Yes they had cheap labor.  But I still stand by the fact they needed to trade and keep their products cheap.  This is solved through secession.  I repeat, the main issue was secession not slavery.  Third, you're bringing in unnecessary topics like the American-Mexican War and the Revolutionary War.  You couldn't get your first examples right, so please don't make people rip apart you newest examples.  Fourth, the Iron Curtain did not cause the Cold War.  I would love to see how you came to this conclusion.  Fifth, I never stated the Nazis caused the Cold War.  Read my comment again. It's pretty evident I agree that the Cold War was against the Soviet Union.  Sixth, your sentence about the Soviet Union's genocides does not make sense.  I see what you're trying to say and no.  The Russians were committing genocide during and after WWII.  They took control of the Nazi concentration camps.  They did not liberated people, they used the facilities for themselves.  Seventh, I am curious as to how the continent of Asia has declared its independence from the world.  (Your sentence: "There's also the matter of the U.S. gaining its independence through war which I could get into the same goes with Asia but quite frankly this is not the place for it.") I am certain from looking at the map on my wall that Asia consists of countries.  Some of these have declared independence from other countries.  Some violently, some not.  India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were handed their freedom.  So was China (economically), Japan (economically), Cambodia, Laos and Burma. There are many more of these, particularly in the Middle East  (and yes that is part of Asia).  Few of these nations fought a Western power for freedom (arguably the Philippines) and many are still having internal and international issues that trace back to Imperialism (Pakistan vs. India, China vs. Tibet and Taiwan, Burma vs. Myanmar, Japan vs Korea and Russia, Israel vs. Palestine vs. the rest of the Middle East, Chechnya vs. Russia).  Eighth, when being possessive the word is "their" not "there."  Ninth, I did state my opinion on the Punisher (which you ignored in your response) and I will once again declare this of off topic (because you seem to have neglected the last references to this). Finally, you requesting me to PM you is like asking me not to do this in public because you are scared or ashamed.  
P.S. The Punisher is still insane (please see previous comment of mine, or anyone else's)
Posted by BransonHuggins
@TDK_1997: Is Frank Castle insane?  Well the answer would be no.  He is not insane.  He knows full well what he is doing, the difference is, he doesn't look at the world in the same rules as the normal "heroes".  Let's talk about insanity for a moment, and let's take Batman or Spider-man or even Superman for example.  Each of them has equally as much blood on there hands as the Punisher, but no one considers them insane do they? 
 
What do I mean?  I am sure you are asking yourself.  Well, let's start with Batman.  Obvious personality disorder aside, here you have a man that night after night continues to round up murderers, rapist, thieves, drug pushers, etc. and take them to jail, or something resembling.  More often then not, the worse case offenders get sent to Arkham, a place, that on numerous occasions has proven quiet easy to break out of.  Now, when this happens, what transpires?  Well you usually have one or more villains going on some sort of crime spree, usually culminating in at least one death of an innocent.  In some cases, particularly the Jokers, you have it ending in multiple deaths.  Shortly there after you have the same criminals rounded back up, and the same cycle starts again.  Now, what is insanity?  The act of continuing to do the same thing over and over and hoping for different results.  What does that sound like?
 
Now I know that some of you may disagree, that the blood is not on Batmans hands, but come on, it really is.  If he would have simply done, what needed to be done, then SO MANY people would still be alive and well.  I know, human life is a precious thing, but there comes a point, where you are of more use dead then you are alive.  Some people really are worth a bullet.
 
Same thing with Spider Man, yeah, he let Norman take a glider to the chest, and yeah, that should have been the end of it, but it wasn't.  So what happened?  Well I think we all know what happened with Mr. Osborn.  how many people had to die?  how many laws had to be broken.  hell he had Bullseye destroy an entire apartment complex, full of people, just to get at Daredevil.  He ruined so many lives, and killed so many through proxy that it's hard to keep count.  Something that could have been easily avoided if Spider Man would have excepted that at the end of the day with great power does come great responsibility, and sometimes that means making the hard choice.  Sometimes that means looking at the bigger picture.  
 
I mean come on, sometimes, just sometimes you have to do what you have to do.  Anyone telling you otherwise is lying.  There are some people that aren't worth it.
 
Now does this mean that the Punisher is without his case of mental illness, no.  Frank is a very sick man.  He finished his actual vendetta years ago, and at this point is on some personal crusade to punish the wicked.  It's not healthy.  no man should surround themselves with that much death and destruction, and no man would be able to do so and still be even remotely sane.  Which he is not.  But at least he knows one thing, and that is that sometimes, sometimes you have to take out the trash; and burn it.  Maybe if more "heroes" really looked at what they did they wouldn't have so many lost loved ones in the future, or so much guilt on there shoulders.  I'm sure it's hard to sleep with the thoughts of all those you cost there lives ringing in your ears. 
Edited by panda21595

  

    
@cody1984: @slvrwolfang said:

@cody1984: I'm glad you did some research into what you said.  First, I did state at the beginning of my comment it was off topic.  Since it was clearly stated (twice) that shouldn't be much of an issue.  Second, I am not saying slavery was not an economic incentive for the South.  Yes they had cheap labor.  But I still stand by the fact they needed to trade and keep their products cheap.  This is solved through secession.  I repeat, the main issue was secession not slavery.  Third, you're bringing in unnecessary topics like the American-Mexican War and the Revolutionary War.  You couldn't get your first examples right, so please don't make people rip apart you newest examples.  Fourth, the Iron Curtain did not cause the Cold War.  I would love to see how you came to this conclusion.  Fifth, I never stated the Nazis caused the Cold War.  Read my comment again. It's pretty evident I agree that the Cold War was against the Soviet Union.  Sixth, your sentence about the Soviet Union's genocides does not make sense.  I see what you're trying to say and no.  The Russians were committing genocide during and after WWII.  They took control of the Nazi concentration camps.  They did not liberated people, they used the facilities for themselves.  Seventh, I am curious as to how the continent of Asia has declared its independence from the world.  (Your sentence: "There's also the matter of the U.S. gaining its independence through war which I could get into the same goes with Asia but quite frankly this is not the place for it.") I am certain from looking at the map on my wall that Asia consists of countries.  Some of these have declared independence from other countries.  Some violently, some not.  India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were handed their freedom.  So was China (economically), Japan (economically), Cambodia, Laos and Burma. There are many more of these, particularly in the Middle East  (and yes that is part of Asia).  Few of these nations fought a Western power for freedom (arguably the Philippines) and many are still having internal and international issues that trace back to Imperialism (Pakistan vs. India, China vs. Tibet and Taiwan, Burma vs. Myanmar, Japan vs Korea and Russia, Israel vs. Palestine vs. the rest of the Middle East, Chechnya vs. Russia).  Eighth, when being possessive the word is "their" not "there."  Ninth, I did state my opinion on the Punisher (which you ignored in your response) and I will once again declare this of off topic (because you seem to have neglected the last references to this). Finally, you requesting me to PM you is like asking me not to do this in public because you are scared or ashamed.  P.S. The Punisher is still insane (please see previous comment of mine, or anyone else's)

Posted by BransonHuggins
@LB70145: Violence doesn't fix things?   Oh what a happy world you must live in.  Unfortunately, history as I am sure has been pointed out, and beaten to death at this point (all jokes aside), proves that statement wrong.  Violence has place in society, as do peace, love and understanding.  Violence is a means to an end, not always the best means,  but a means none the less.  You can retain your thought that violence solves nothing, and that is fine.  But I present you with this; your wife/gf/bf/etc is about to be raped, the man is on top of them, next to them is a knife or a gun, you choose.  Now they can either stop this act by using said objects, or they can be forcibly violated, and have to live with the thought and knowledge that they had the means to end it, but did not.  Now I am not blaming the victim for what happened, but they did have a chance to stop it, and they did not.  In that case are you going to say that violence would solve nothing?  If you could have killed the terrorist that were responsible for 9/11 before hand would you have done so, or would you have let it play out?  Let me bring up another example, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Now, both of these bombings were horribly violent, and arguably one of the worst things this country of mine has ever done; but what would have been worse?  If we did not drop the bombs, and we invaded, we knew, because they stated as such that the Japanese would fight till there was no one left, till every man women and child.  If we did not nuke them, we would have carpet bombed them, making Vietnam look like a fireworks show at a county fair.  After this was done, we were going to march in hundreds of thousands of our troops, and kill anyone who was left.  So what was really worse?  The eradication of a people, or a few hundred thousand to save millions?  You can justify doing nothing all you want, it still doesn't make it any more right then it does to commit and act of unspeakable horror.  The choice to do nothing is often the worse choice.  you may think your hands are clean, because you did not kill, but they are not.
 
The road to hell is paved in good intentions.  remember that.  Now I am not a religious man, but that holds true none the less.  often the easy road, is the road of least resistance, peacful resolution.  But there are times when peace is no longer a viable option, and things have to be done.  Escelation is needed.  You can keep lofty ideals, that's okay; but you should know that there is always, ALWAYS, going to be someone out there that doesn't care, and will push you to the limits of your ideals.  At that point you have an option, you can either stand by it, and die, or you can fight and survive.  now, you may be the bigger man for standing by your belief, but you really won't get to enjoy that, because chances are you will be dead.  
 
Now let me ask you this, since this is a comic page after all, I don't want to stray to far off subject; do you think that Batman has blood on his hands?  Do you think that if he would have taken out the Joker years ago, that many more people would be alive living full lives, not cut down in there prime.  Do you think it is fair or just that a maniac is left to live while good people die in the streets.  All because of one mans ideals?  Do you think it's right that Batman should force HIS ideals on others by not doing what clearly needs to be done?  At what point is it not about doing the right thing, but about being selfish?  At what point is it not about getting a good night sleep knowing that you did what was "right" to you, at the cost of others lives.  I mean hey, if a few hundred people have to die, as long as it's not directly by me, it's okay.  I got the Joker off the streets.  Oh, he escaped and killed again, oh well, that's not my fault.  I'm just the guy that catches him, it's not my place to decide that enough is enough.  Well actually it is.  At some point it becomes your right to decide.  At what point is enough enough I guess is the question?  What has to happen for violence to be okay.  Rape?  Murder?  9/11?  The Apartheid?  The Congo?  Slavery?  Human trafficking?  Child porn?  At what point is it time to do what needs to be done?  At what point does someone quit thinking about themselves, and start thinking about others?  Answer that for me. 
Posted by cody1984
@slvrwolfang@panda21595: Read the PM.
Posted by Pokeysteve
@meowshi said:
He'd probably to justify it.  I remember when those criminals wanted to become heroes, and were trying to help out the anti-registration side during Civil War.  What does Frank do?  He just walks in and kills them.  What annoyed me is that Captain America, Spider-Man, and all these other heroes were in the room, and they didn't do anything!  They didn't have him arrested, they didn't detain him, they barely even responded.  They just had Luke Cage punch him a few times and sent him on his way.  That's his "punishment" for killing men in cold blood in front of these "great heroes". 
 
Awful, awful writing.
 
@Pokeysteve said:




@LB70145 said: 

I want to say that the Punisher has shot/killed innocents before. His policy is that if he does kill an innocent he will do the time in jail for it.

I've read this somewhere as well. I think it has happened and he's turned himself in. 
Ultimate Punisher looks ridiculous. I've noticed when written correctly, Castle is an amazing tactile planner. People thinks he's all about guns and shooting but Ennis took him deeper than that. You get in his head and he's always thinking of scenarios. 

And I'd be willing to bet Castle has saved more lives than Cap. 
You'd be wrong.  Punisher stops street crimes.  Captain America saves the fucking world.  His contributions in WW2 are also more impressive than the Punisher's military history.   
This was all ready addressed. Cap fights with teams. Large groups of people. He beats up bad guys. Punisher is by himself (except for Micro occasionally) and kills bad guys. You give each of them an identical city with identical crime, for arguments sake of course, and Frank will clean that up way faster than Cap will. They'd have to be convicted, and trials, and jail and then they're free. There is no parole from dead. 
Posted by entropy_aegis
@War Killer said:
To me, Steve Rogers put it best when it comes to the Punisher...
 

PROOF.lol
  • 169 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4