Goldenboy_Prime's forum posts

#1 Edited by Goldenboy_Prime (172 posts) - - Show Bio

Although I wish you were wrong, I find that I 100% agreement with this post. I've been reflecting on this for awhile and I can't think of one thing Dick has gained from the reboot, something that has improved the character in anyway. As much as I hate the character, Jason Todd has benefited the most from this reboot. Actually, he may be the only robin that this can actually be said about. Lobdell has actually made him into something more than a hurt brought back for the dead puppy with daddy issues that kills.

Back to Dick, I really hope Higgins "bold direction" actually rejuvenates the character, because I'd really hate to drop the character that got me into comics and superheroes book. The way DC has treated the character actually makes me sort of glad Bertinelli was erased, at least I didn't have to watch her suffer.

#2 Edited by Goldenboy_Prime (172 posts) - - Show Bio

I chose other. Some guy on CBR came up with some amazing Vegas concept. It was brilliant. Most of the cities listed are easy to write as grim and Nightwing should be written in a different tone than Batman. Vegas is an entertainment based and vice laden city, a showman like Grayson would fit that scene pretty well. Also, I don't recall that city ever being heavily used in comics if at all.

I know they was no vote or response to this but, why would anyone got to Metropolis? Aren't Superboy and Supergirl based out of there along with Superman? I mean you should at least leave some lowly cannon fodder for the police to catch, you know show their worth.

Anyway if I can find that post I'll repost some of it's excerpts over here. Realistically though, I don't even care if he stays or leaves. I just a good direction to drive the freaking story and for them to stop tanking the character and mutilating his history. Am I asking for too much?

#3 Posted by Goldenboy_Prime (172 posts) - - Show Bio

@INLIFE: I've got to say, this is probably the best thread I've seen on this site since I joined. So thank you for that.

Do you believe in the dreams that seem very unrealistic to others but very possible to you? These dreams that stay inside of you, but others doubt and disbelieve in?

Yes, I’m sure others doubt my dreams, or preferred term goals, but I have realistic expectations in my ability to accomplish them.

I just had a dream on my mind, not the most unrealistic one I have ever had. It involves multiple ideas about a certain subject and the dream still very nice to think about. But I am a big loser and will be incapable of reaching this dream and any others that come to me. I just thought it would be interesting to hear from people.

Do you still hold on to those dreams?

Of course and I plan to hold on to them until I accomplish them. I truly believe they're attainable so there is no reason for me to let them go.

Do you think that they will come true? Most importantly, do you believe that they can come true?

I’m on the fence in terms of whether or not I think they actually will come true. There are a lot of variables that have to be taken to account, variables that I’m not necessarily in control of. However I know that they can come true, since other people have already accomplished them.

For me, Michelangelo articulated the mindset best when he said:

The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.

#4 Posted by Goldenboy_Prime (172 posts) - - Show Bio

@akbogert:

I think it's safe to say that pursuing this particular discussion will benefit no one, as it seems our views are simply irreconcilable.

See I would have been fine with you leaving it at this. I probably would say alright and being done with it, but then you tacked on all this… stuff:

I 100% stand by referring to what he did as violation based on the definition I quoted -- treating his engagement (something sacred) with irreverence, …

This is the beginning of you telling me you don’t understand, and want to continue the dialogue. First, him potentially violating his engagement to Kori has nothing to do with Gordon; and whether or not they‘re sacred is clearly subjective.

…failing to respect Barbara's rights (to know he was no longer "on the market").

Gordon’s rights? He didn’t violate them. If we’re looking at the same scene she is clearly the initiator. So how did he violate her rights? He knocks on the door (or says “knock knock”). Brief dialogue between the two and he hugs her. Then it looks like he’s about to tell her, but she kisses and hushes (“sshhhhhh”) him. Grayson is apparently thinking with his little Grayson and not his head, so [like a dolt] he doesn’t resist her advances.

As I said earlier, unless you are trying to make the case that Barbara raped him, there's no substance to the argument that she prevented him from telling her the truth.

Nobody but you and the OP brought up rape, so as far as I can tell nobody else is stating she did… Probably because he complied…

He willingly had sex with her knowing both that he should not be doing so (due to the engagement) and that, given the situation, she would not want to be doing so (also due to the engagement).

You keep forgetting the part where she also willingly had sex with him, heck she was the initiator. She didn’t think anything he had to say was worth the wait, hence why she hushed him.

See we don’t actually know that she wouldn't do so. I’m sure before this scene nobody thought anything like this would have happened between them. Again if he and Kori were in an open relationship it would be fine, as far as their relationship was concerned. [I’m pretty sure they weren’t but I’ll say this every time you bring it up. Once been accounted for it’s no longer necessary to continually bring up]

Her behavior makes sense because she sees him as a great friend who has been through a lot and getting together will make them both feel good.

So basically she’s not responsible for her actions? That’s what I'm getting from you, as you’re attempting to shift the entire burden on him. If they’re such good friends why doesn’t she at least know that he’s in a relationship with Kori? It’s not like he was hiding it from his friends in the Superhero community.

I think too highly of Babs to believe she would have refused to stop had he made any real effort to say wait, no, stop, we can't do this.

Ah, and that bias is what breakdowns the dialogue. She’s a fictional character bro; she’s subject to the whims of writers and editors, not a real person. She’ll do anything the writer says she did; this scene should be evidence of that.

Just curious but, are you aware if this situation was reversed that some people would have said he potentially raped her? I mean that is what the “Ask first” movement in the US and Canada is about, preventing “awkward” situations like this and much worse from happening. So technically, there could be a legitimate argument made that she may have raped him since she never asked him for consent. However, that’s not my argument, so I won’t make it.

Anyhow, as I said at the start, there's no gain to be made from arguing over this because I'm quite entrenched in that position. I'm fine with saying "it shouldn't have happened" and that it was "bad writing," but those are not the same as trying to make excuses for a deplorable act that, yes, violated two women. If you see it otherwise, that's your prerogative, and we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

You probably should have left it at that. Also there is nothing I have more contempt for than cheating. If he and Kori weren’t in an open relationship, then he has some explaining to do [to Kori] Gordon was just as responsible for the situation in question as Dick was, and again it could be argued she is more so since she didn’t ask for consent. She’s a big [fictional] girl, I’m sure she doesn’t mind being held accountable for her actions, but if she does that’s too bad. I mean did she have a reason to think he and Kori broke up? Again their relationship wasn’t a secret from their closest friends, what’s Gordon’s excuse? Or was her issue the engagement more so than the fact that he was in a relationship?

In any case this isn’t worth anymore of my time, and I won’t be responsive to this thread.

#5 Posted by Goldenboy_Prime (172 posts) - - Show Bio

@akbogert said:

As I said, rape wasn't the right word. But violate is.

I disagree with that phrasing as well.

Consent without understanding of circumstances can hardly be considered true and proper consent. Before you sign the EULA you're given a chance to see what you're agreeing to. Babs never got that chance. I doubt anyone believes that she would have had sex with him if she'd known he was engaged. She deserved that information, and didn't get it. He violated her, plain and simple.

Perhaps next time she'll let the guy finish talking before she throws herself on him. He was trying to tell her but she stuffed her tongue down his throat. It's kind of hard to talk with a second tongue in your mouth...He's a moron for not being a stronger person in that situation, however she is responsible for her actions.

Her lack of self control when he was trying to talk to her resulted in any "violation" that you feel occurred. Am I disappointed that one of my favorite characters also lacked self control? Absolutely, but he isn't the only one with that issue in this scene... not to mention he wasn't even the initiator.

It was poor writing and it was distasteful, but that's about it.

#6 Edited by Goldenboy_Prime (172 posts) - - Show Bio

A good start would be addressing mental health since that would actually benefit us in other matters besides gun violence.

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

Not really gun control doesn't work in america. Look at Detriot and D.C.

Nobody lives in Detroit silly!

#7 Posted by Goldenboy_Prime (172 posts) - - Show Bio

Looney Tunes. Not much of a Disney guy on any level.

#8 Posted by Goldenboy_Prime (172 posts) - - Show Bio

@Naamah said:

Being a proud mother... This is a shaky topic for me. I would never get one. But I don't hold other women to my own personal standards. I just don't like it when people use abortion as a means of birth control. There are women who get them over and over and over and over again... It makes me sad.

/Thread

#9 Posted by Goldenboy_Prime (172 posts) - - Show Bio

@Nathaniel_Christopher said:

@Goldenboy_Prime said:

Yeah he didn't rape her, that is obvious but I'm not a fan with the way he handled it. There is no excuse for cheating.

And I didn't say there was an excuse, i'm simply pointing out that cheating and rape are two completely different things and what happened should in no way be called rapish by any means.

Ah okay I see where another poster claimed it was rapish... what does that even mean? Either it's consensual or it's not...

#10 Edited by Goldenboy_Prime (172 posts) - - Show Bio

@boschePG said:

@Goldenboy_Prime: @mrdecepticonleader: @soduh2:

I can post the link also, but here is what it says:

To determine the accuracy of a copied manuscript, textual critics scrutinize the way the transcripts have passed through history to their extant forms. The higher the volume of the earliest texts (and their parallels to each other), the greater the textual reliability and the less chance that the transcript's content has been changed over the years. Multiple copies may also be grouped into text types (see New Testament text types), with some types judged closer to the hypothetical original than others. Differences often extend beyond minor variations and may involve, for instance, interpolation of material central to issues of historicity and doctrine, such as the ending of Mark 16

yet in the end I guess you dont consider this verified also since For the Christian Bible, the canon was decided at the Council of Nicea, which was called together by Constantine in like 327 CE.

You may be absolutely right. (sarcasm intended)The emperor of Rome, the most powerful, advanced, and biggest empire calling in the best scholars and literate men in empire verifies nothing (sarcasm continues)....cuz that is why Constantine called in all these scholars, to verify all the chapters, but that isnt verified either

@Goldenboy_Prime said:

No just because some of the characters that are featured in the bible actually existed doesn't mean the bible is a legitimate historical source. I mean stuff like that happens all the time in the ancient myths. I'm pretty sure that's not how they decipher historical accuracy, I feel like they would hold it up to other historical records that are, for the lack of a better term, verified.

Just remind me never to follow your directions cuz you think to much and your thoughts on verification are not verified.....epic fail

Maybe... however I know for a fact that you are wrong on how things are verified. Especially if you think the bible is considered a good or accurate with regard to being historical record/reference.

It is very taxing to debate with those who don't use logic or reason to come to their conclusions... But I mean that in the best possible way.