1. #2001
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    No, it's like saying that when someone's conviction is overturned...they were never, legally speaking, guilty.
    Correct, so if we have now established that if he is not irreversibly dead his "legally dead" status is now invalid.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  2. #2002
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    I don't recall any other marvel show that has their main character break the 4th wall or set up a profile on a dating app. The closest thing is Deadpool...and the She-Hulk trailers didn't make it look anything at all like Deadpool.
    So what? breaking the 4th wall is what makes it a sitcom? you have a trailer that is intentionally selling both action and comedy, the music leans more towards action while the clips lean more towards comedy, but both things exist in that trailer and nothing about it suggest that the show is a sitcom. Is not a big deal though, i was just pointing out that it is okay to expect something else if our expectations come from the trailer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    What's weak about them? This is a vague complaint.
    It doesn't have the structure of a sitcom and the show has very few episodes to properly develop any interest in a cast of characters. We basically have Jen and that's it. All of the other characters introduced don't stick around or have enough screen time or developement to make the viewer actually care about them or be invested in any story with them alone. A sitcom can have a main character, but it's usually supported by a bunch of secondary characters that are present through the whole thing and she-hulk just has Nikki barely doing that.

    That's why the episodes with cameos from already stablished characters worked better, the supporting characters didn't need to be developed in the show, wich was a smart move considering the time restraints, so it was easier to tell a self-contained story with them, but it was also time that they didn't (or couldn't) invest into developing the cast from the show.

    The premise of a sitcom with she-hulk leading her legal team and dealing with a different kind of crazy each week is actually not bad, but that's not what we got. We keep saying that this is a sitcom, but it is not. Is just a comedy show that has a few episodes structured like a sitcom, but not all comedy shows are sitcoms. Wich takes me to your next point:

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    It's a sitcom...not an action series or a drama. I don't expect a ton of action or intricate plotlines from a sitcom
    It can be more than one thing you know... a comedy show, an action show, an adventure show... it's all those things, it has elements from all those things being present through every episode. But even if it was a sitcom, i'm not going to expect action from HIMYM, but it's very reasonable to expect more action when the main character has superpowers and is part of a cinematic universe that tells stories about superheroes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    You don't like the comedy. Other people do.
    Yeah, of course! i'm not here to convince you otherwise, when it comes to jokes finding them funny or not is very personal. If people likes it and has fun watching it? good for them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    The CGI is not very good most of the time. I can give you that. I don't think the CGI is bad enough that it hurts the show though.
    As far as issues go, this one is in the bottom of the list for me... it is bad, but as you say, not to the point of hurting the show. There are a few scenes where it looks like they inserted a videogame character, but i find that to be more funny than dissapointing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    Most of your complaints are simply handled by saying "It's not for you".
    There are issues with the show that are entirely a matter of personal taste, but i also see a bunch of issues that wouldn't necessarily make me dislike the show, like the CGI i just mentioned.
    "Mastery Haste will fix it."

  3. #2003
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    The law does deal with this. Legally dead is defined as "irreversibly dead". When he "dies" it is a temporary status, and therefore not irreversible.
    As I've pointed out, that isn't a good argument to make in a world where 50% OF THE GLOBAL POPULATION literally came back from the dead. You can't just assume death is irreversible when you have almost 4 billion examples of it literally being reversed.

    WE have that luxury because we have no evidence for the reversibility of death. THEY DO.

    And who knows, the Blip might precisely be WHY Mr. Immortal claims he legally died. Maybe they actually changed legislation to account for things like the Blip. But even if not and everything is as it is for us, that would call into question a lot of the foundations for legal definitions of death. And remember: laws have to be universally applicable, they can't just be "this holds for everyone except Mr. Immortal" (unless that's actually written into the law).

    Both our intuitive and legal/medical definitions of death rest on observed facts of the natural world that aren't the same as they are in the MCU - Mr. Immortal is an exception that breaks that order, and that requires adjustment. You can't just handwave it away as it being just one guy.

    Whether or not courts would rule in his favor or not we don't know (and that's assuming his outright statement about actually having legally died was incorrect to begin with) but at the very least, they COULD rule in his favor.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    This is no different than someone dying during surgery and being resuscitated which happens literally every hour of every day across the country.
    It is, because none of that meets the definitions of death which are largely based on "common medical consensus". The things that killed Mr. Immortal WOULD fall under common medical consensus for death for everyone except Mr. Immortal (and maybe supers of similar power).

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Anyone who fakes their death is considered "legally dead".
    That's not quite correct, but I get what you're trying to say. A successfully faked death usually leads to being declared dead at some point.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    That doesn't mean their actions in attaining that status were not illegal.
    Nor does it mean they WERE. Faking your death in itself is not illegal. Insurance fraud or avoiding criminal prosecution are, and many faked deaths are done for that purpose. But those are crimes regardless of whether you faked your death or not.

    I can only repeat: faking your death is not in itself illegal (in most US jurisdictions).

  4. #2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Geckoo View Post
    So what? breaking the 4th wall is what makes it a sitcom? you have a trailer that is intentionally selling both action and comedy, the music leans more towards action while the clips lean more towards comedy, but both things exist in that trailer and nothing about it suggest that the show is a sitcom. Is not a big deal though, i was just pointing out that it is okay to expect something else if our expectations come from the trailer.
    Breaking the 4th wall is what lets you know you're in for something different. The show does have both action and comedy...but as you said, the emphasis is on the comedy.

    It doesn't have the structure of a sitcom
    What's the structure of a sitcom? It literally means "situational comedy".

    and the show has very few episodes to properly develop any interest in a cast of characters.
    The show has very few episodes in general. And "interest in characters" is going to be entirely subjective. You may not be interested in those characters yet. But I am. I liked Nikki and Pug straight away. Mallory is growing on me. And I'm interested in Holliway.

    We basically have Jen and that's it. All of the other characters introduced don't stick around or have enough screen time or developement to make the viewer actually care about them or be invested in any story with them alone.
    We just had an entire episode where "plot line A" involved two of the supporting characters.

    A sitcom can have a main character, but it's usually supported by a bunch of secondary characters that are present through the whole thing and she-hulk just has Nikki barely doing that.
    That's not true.

    That's why the episodes with cameos from already stablished characters worked better, the supporting characters didn't need to be developed in the show, wich was a smart move considering the time restraints, so it was easier to tell a self-contained story with them, but it was also time that they didn't (or couldn't) invest into developing the cast from the show.
    Sure, it's easier when characters come from other shows...like Frasier already being established in Cheers before getting his own show.

    It can be more than one thing you know... a comedy show, an action show, an adventure show... it's all those things, it has elements from all those things being present through every episode. But even if it was a sitcom, i'm not going to expect action from HIMYM, but it's very reasonable to expect more action when the main character has superpowers and is part of a cinematic universe that tells stories about superheroes.
    And you do get more action than you would from HIMYM. We've seen Jen in a few different battles already. Wrestling with Bruce, fighting against Titania, against the Wrecking Crew, against demons, and against Titania again. But the show is not She-Hulk, Super-Hero-at-Large. It's She-Hulk, Attorney-at-Law.

    Ii'll say again... what you are giving me are subjective reasons why a person may not like She-Hulk...and it's fine if they do not.
    Last edited by Evil Midnight Bomber; 2022-09-26 at 09:02 PM.
    Isms bore me. I think they are only brought by people who seek to marginalize the potential of each ism to provide something meaningful. Name it, Capitalism, Socialism, even Communism-- all contain something of merit towards structuring a society. The biggest flaw in human history has been the need to take the worst of a system along with the best. It doesn't have to be all of one and none of another.

  5. #2005
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    As I've pointed out, that isn't a good argument to make in a world where 50% OF THE GLOBAL POPULATION literally came back from the dead. You can't just assume death is irreversible when you have almost 4 billion examples of it literally being reversed.

    WE have that luxury because we have no evidence for the reversibility of death. THEY DO.
    Death is reversed all the time, both legally and medically. People are declared dead and turn up alive later. People die and get resuscitated literally all the time. The idea that this is new or novel is silly.

    And who knows, the Blip might precisely be WHY Mr. Immortal claims he legally died. Maybe they actually changed legislation to account for things like the Blip. But even if not and everything is as it is for us, that would call into question a lot of the foundations for legal definitions of death. And remember: laws have to be universally applicable, they can't just be "this holds for everyone except Mr. Immortal" (unless that's actually written into the law).
    Maybe they changed the law and maybe Mr Immortal is really Steve Rogers wearing a mask. Maybe maybe maybe is not an argument.

    Both our intuitive and legal/medical definitions of death rest on observed facts of the natural world that aren't the same as they are in the MCU - Mr. Immortal is an exception that breaks that order, and that requires adjustment. You can't just handwave it away as it being just one guy.
    He doesn't break anything. Legally dead is irreversibly dead. The fact that he can survive things other people can't has nothing to do with that. I can survive a ton of things that a 110 year old person can't survive. That doesn't magically change what legally dead means for each of us.

    Whether or not courts would rule in his favor or not we don't know (and that's assuming his outright statement about actually having legally died was incorrect to begin with) but at the very least, they COULD rule in his favor.
    "Legally dead" is the status of anyone who fakes their death successfully, no matter how many laws they broke in the process. I don't know why you guys are obsessed with refusing to understanding this and forcing me to repeat myself 500 times.

    It is, because none of that meets the definitions of death which are largely based on "common medical consensus". The things that killed Mr. Immortal WOULD fall under common medical consensus for death for everyone except Mr. Immortal (and maybe supers of similar power).
    Legal death means irreversible death.

    That's not quite correct, but I get what you're trying to say. A successfully faked death usually leads to being declared dead at some point.

    Nor does it mean they WERE. Faking your death in itself is not illegal. Insurance fraud or avoiding criminal prosecution are, and many faked deaths are done for that purpose. But those are crimes regardless of whether you faked your death or not.

    I can only repeat: faking your death is not in itself illegal (in most US jurisdictions).
    Faking your death by recklessly endangering other people and then forging fake identities is illegal. Again, why do I have to repeat myself?
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  6. #2006
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    Interesting. Considering you are clearly imagining that the article speaks for me, which it does not, like at all.
    Clearly your presenting one article as if it were some grand proof of your point. You linked it. I could care less about it’s existence. It’s just one opinion amongst 1000s.

    Meanwhile, your the one ranting about a show you hate making false claims about the creative teams agenda. A more sensible person would’ve stopped watching weeks ago.

  7. #2007
    I'm curious. Does Mr. Immortal ever actually die when he does what he does?

    Like, take Jack Harkniss from Doctor Who/Torchwood. No one can argue that guy dies. Brain and heart activity stop. Dude gets blown up and encased in concrete and just sort of....grows back into existence, when the organs necessary to facilitate breathing grow back, he gasps and there he is.

    For Mr. Immortal, all I have is the show. He jumps out of a window, falls what, 40 stories and flats out on a car. Then instantly just gets up and walks away. So IS he immortal? or indestructible? Could you, say, cut his head off and he would go limp? or would his head call you rude?
    Quote Originally Posted by Minikin View Post
    "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never....BURN IT"
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    You are kinda joe Roganing this topic. Hardly have any actual knowledge other than what people have told you, and jumping into a discussion with people who have direct experience with it. Don't be Joe Rogan.

  8. #2008
    Quote Originally Posted by AcidicSyn View Post
    I'm curious. Does Mr. Immortal ever actually die when he does what he does?

    Like, take Jack Harkniss from Doctor Who/Torchwood. No one can argue that guy dies. Brain and heart activity stop. Dude gets blown up and encased in concrete and just sort of....grows back into existence, when the organs necessary to facilitate breathing grow back, he gasps and there he is.

    For Mr. Immortal, all I have is the show. He jumps out of a window, falls what, 40 stories and flats out on a car. Then instantly just gets up and walks away. So IS he immortal? or indestructible? Could you, say, cut his head off and he would go limp? or would his head call you rude?
    His power is regeneration, not dissimilar to wolverine.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  9. #2009
    Quote Originally Posted by AcidicSyn View Post
    I'm curious. Does Mr. Immortal ever actually die when he does what he does?
    He says he does. I doubt he's ever had any scientific tests to confirm that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    His power is regeneration, not dissimilar to wolverine.
    Very different from Wolverine actually. His regeneration, in the comics at least, only triggers at what would otherwise be fatal injuries. Otherwise he heals at a normal human rate. And Wolverine is not Immortal. He will, outside of external forces, live for a very long time...but not indefinitely and he can be killed.
    Last edited by Evil Midnight Bomber; 2022-09-26 at 09:09 PM.
    Isms bore me. I think they are only brought by people who seek to marginalize the potential of each ism to provide something meaningful. Name it, Capitalism, Socialism, even Communism-- all contain something of merit towards structuring a society. The biggest flaw in human history has been the need to take the worst of a system along with the best. It doesn't have to be all of one and none of another.

  10. #2010
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    As I've pointed out, that isn't a good argument to make in a world where 50% OF THE GLOBAL POPULATION literally came back from the dead. You can't just assume death is irreversible when you have almost 4 billion examples of it literally being reversed.

    WE have that luxury because we have no evidence for the reversibility of death. THEY DO.

    And who knows, the Blip might precisely be WHY Mr. Immortal claims he legally died. Maybe they actually changed legislation to account for things like the Blip. But even if not and everything is as it is for us, that would call into question a lot of the foundations for legal definitions of death. And remember: laws have to be universally applicable, they can't just be "this holds for everyone except Mr. Immortal" (unless that's actually written into the law).

    Both our intuitive and legal/medical definitions of death rest on observed facts of the natural world that aren't the same as they are in the MCU - Mr. Immortal is an exception that breaks that order, and that requires adjustment. You can't just handwave it away as it being just one guy.

    Whether or not courts would rule in his favor or not we don't know (and that's assuming his outright statement about actually having legally died was incorrect to begin with) but at the very least, they COULD rule in his favor.
    That ties back to what I said last week, where the show has some decent stuff to it, but feels hollow to me. Sure, they can decide the point of the show is not to delve into the issues they raise, but it feels empty to me with nothing else to fill it. Mr Immortal feels like one of the writers telling one of the others about how she knew this guy that was so afraid of confrontation, he'd literally throw himself out a window to avoid it. Or one of them talking how at a wedding one time, the bride told them to bus tables. And they all laughed at that in the conversation, so they made a show out of it.

    So, here we are discussing the legal ramifications of Mr Immortal, but they never really addressed any of it in the show. Sure, HE says he was legally dead, but that doesn't really mean anything. If he got hit by a car, died, and got back up and walked away, he wasn't really dead long enough to be dead.
    Did he like, get hit by a car, stay dead for a few days while a coronor did an autopsy or examination, they buried him and then he dug his way out? Seeing him crawl out of a grave, dusting himself off and decrying how it's too bad since he really liked that marriage, might have been a good scene.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  11. #2011
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    He says he does. I doubt he's ever had any scientific tests to confirm that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Very different from Wolverine actually. His regeneration, in the comics at least, only triggers at what would otherwise be fatal injuries. Otherwise he heals at a normal human rate.
    That's not very different. It's slightly different. The power to fly or shoot lasers out of your eyes is "very different".
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  12. #2012
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    That's not very different. It's slightly different. The power to fly or shoot lasers out of your eyes is "very different".
    well, it does mean that if he threw himself in front of the car, but was just injured so badly that he was in a full body cast rather than dying, that things might really suck. Also there's the question of pain. But, oh well!
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  13. #2013
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,876
    Quote Originally Posted by AcidicSyn View Post
    I'm curious. Does Mr. Immortal ever actually die when he does what he does?

    Like, take Jack Harkniss from Doctor Who/Torchwood. No one can argue that guy dies. Brain and heart activity stop. Dude gets blown up and encased in concrete and just sort of....grows back into existence, when the organs necessary to facilitate breathing grow back, he gasps and there he is.

    For Mr. Immortal, all I have is the show. He jumps out of a window, falls what, 40 stories and flats out on a car. Then instantly just gets up and walks away. So IS he immortal? or indestructible? Could you, say, cut his head off and he would go limp? or would his head call you rude?
    In the comics, he has a stupidly high healing factor that kicks in only at death: non-fatal wounds he heals from normally. You could throw him into a star and he'd sit, burning and healing, until the star goes nova, collapses into a black hole, and evaporates over several billion years. He'd be pissed about it, but survive. His immortality is canonically infinite, like "will eventually be a founding entity for whatever universe comes next" infinite.

    In the MCU? Nobody knows.


  14. #2014
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    That's not very different. It's slightly different. The power to fly or shoot lasers out of your eyes is "very different".
    Wolverine heals from any injury or sickness. Mr. Immortal only heals from "death". Wolverine breaks a limb (when his bones aren't sheathed in admantium) he heals in seconds. Mr. Immortal breaks a limb... he heals at the same rate you or I would.

    Wolverine can die. Mr. Immortal cannot.

    Very different.
    Last edited by Evil Midnight Bomber; 2022-09-26 at 09:15 PM.
    Isms bore me. I think they are only brought by people who seek to marginalize the potential of each ism to provide something meaningful. Name it, Capitalism, Socialism, even Communism-- all contain something of merit towards structuring a society. The biggest flaw in human history has been the need to take the worst of a system along with the best. It doesn't have to be all of one and none of another.

  15. #2015
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Death is reversed all the time, both legally and medically.
    That's incorrect.

    Legally, the DECLARATION of someone's death is reversed. That doesn't change nor touch upon the facts or definitions of death.

    Medically, if it's reversible they didn't die. They may have erroneously have been declared dead, but much in the same as above, it's that declaration that is reversed. The facts or definitions of death are untouched by this.

    None of these have bearing on what constitutes "death" in a legal sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    People die and get resuscitated literally all the time.
    Wrong. This is a common misconception arising from metaphorical use of "death" in the vernacular. "I died during surgery" "I died on the table" etc. are purely conversational tropes that we employ for dramatic effect. They are not medical terminology per se, have no medical or legal meaning, and are NOT employed in the context of resuscitation (again, outside of common parlance for shorthand or dramatic effect). If you get resuscitated then you were never dead, by definition.

    Neither does it cover apparent death due to e.g. hypothermia or tetrodotoxin poisoning (some cases of which made it all the way to autopsy before being discovered), except metaphorically (same as above).

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Maybe maybe maybe is not an argument.
    You don't want that. Because then all we have is him literally saying "I was legally dead". That's the only SURE thing we have. Maybe he lied, you say? OH YEAH, MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    He doesn't break anything. Legally dead is irreversibly dead.
    I assume you don't mean "legally dead" which is very much not that (as you yourself have pointed out, someone can have been declared legally dead and then have that declaration reversed) but "legally speaking, dead means irreversibly dead"?

    That's a problem in the MCU, because how do you KNOW? We know people can get resurrected in the MCU years after they died. It happened. What if, say, all the people who died over the last, say, 200,000 years all come back to life in 50 years because Dr. Strange screws up something? Does that mean they're currently not dead? It would have to mean that, because they COULD get resurrected, which means their deaths ARE reversible in principle, even if they're not actually reversed in practice. And that creates a lot of legal problems, because you can't just put all legal claims in abeyance while someone is dead, then resume them if and when their deaths get reversed and they are no longer dead. That would create a massive undue burden on the legal system - what about inheritance, contracts, criminal charges, etc. Do they just pause for everyone, just in case their death wasn't actually permanent? And if you DO stop things on what you THINK is irreversible death (even though it might turn out not to be), then why isn't Mr. Immortal off the hook for the same reason?

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    The fact that he can survive things other people can't has nothing to do with that.
    That depends what you mean by "survive". One may well argue that he in fact does NOT survive, he just comes back from death. Same problem as above - it requires a lot of legal fine-print and interpretation to get right. You can't just gloss over it with a word like "survive" when the law is involved. Every detail matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    "Legally dead" is the status of anyone who fakes their death successfully, no matter how many laws they broke in the process. I don't know why you guys are obsessed with refusing to understanding this and forcing me to repeat myself 500 times.
    Because we don't know MCU laws. We know OUR laws, but we don't know if they work the same. And we also don't know if our laws as they are written would, in fact, apply that way to someone like Mr. Immortal, if he really existed. As I've pointed out several times, there exist a multitude of possible legal arguments he could make against this. Whether or not they'd be successful in a court is another matter, but he could at least make a case for it. It's far from simple and obvious, because he breaks the a-priori assumptions of many legal definitions.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Legal death means irreversible death.
    It also involves "common medical consensus", usually. This is a necessary prong in the definition because what is and isn't "reversible" has changed historically, and is likely to keep changing. You could easily demonstrate to a judge that something like e.g. getting decapitated would indeed fall under "common medical consensus" of death. And then Mr. Immortal could just do that.

    The law lives and dies with details. Those are of great importance in jurisprudence, and they can change outcomes dramatically.

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Faking your death by recklessly endangering other people and then forging fake identities is illegal.
    You're creating something that doesn't exist. Reckless endangerment is a crime, as is forgery (usually). Whether or not faking your death is involved in it is immaterial. And as I said, those could well be past the statute of limitations by now, depending on the exact circumstances. Or could be technically crimes, but too difficult to prosecute to ever bring to trial (e.g. because it's too long ago, because you can't find witnesses, because evidence has been destroyed, etc.).

  16. #2016
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Clearly your presenting one article as if it were some grand proof of your point. You linked it. I could care less about it’s existence. It’s just one opinion amongst 1000s.
    It isn't grand proof of anything. Except that you are unable to read my friggin words. It is so frustrating to talk to a person that just twists what you say until they fit their agenda. If they even do you that curtesy and don't just call you a liar.

    Discussing things in this thread is really pointless. If you make a point that the mob can't refute then it is lie, if you interpret something differently then the mob would like then you are wrong and there is not even any point to talk about why. You are just wrong.

    Really, it is pathetic. If you people are so uninterested in the quality of shows, why do you even spend energy on it? Just so you can defend this trainwreck out of spite for "incels"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivanstone View Post
    Meanwhile, your the one ranting about a show you hate making false claims about the creative teams agenda. A more sensible person would’ve stopped watching weeks ago.
    None of my claims are false. You just don't want them to be true and you choose to ignore everything that contradicts your pre-conceived opinion.

    Besides that. My rants serve a purpose. I want to make sure that Marvel never again delivers a piece of garbage like this. Since the backlash is getting louder and louder with every episode I would say that we are well on the way to that. I would be incredibly surprised if we see a second season of this show. If we do then only because Marvel is afraid of Twitter calling them out as misogynists.

    What is your goal? To defend a writer that doesn't give a crap about you and in fact is making tons of money from your blind acceptance of her lazyness?

  17. #2017
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    Besides that. My rants serve a purpose. I want to make sure that Marvel never again delivers a piece of garbage like this. Since the backlash is getting louder and louder with every episode I would say that we are well on the way to that. I would be incredibly surprised if we see a second season of this show. If we do then only because Marvel is afraid of Twitter calling them out as misogynists.
    Yes, you (and those like you) are doing a great job telling Marvel they should never again deliver a show like She-Hulk by adding to their viewing numbers every week. "Hate-watchers" might prove to be the very thing that pushes She-Hulk over the line in terms of it getting renewed for a second season.
    Isms bore me. I think they are only brought by people who seek to marginalize the potential of each ism to provide something meaningful. Name it, Capitalism, Socialism, even Communism-- all contain something of merit towards structuring a society. The biggest flaw in human history has been the need to take the worst of a system along with the best. It doesn't have to be all of one and none of another.

  18. #2018
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    That's incorrect.

    Legally, the DECLARATION of someone's death is reversed. That doesn't change nor touch upon the facts or definitions of death.

    Medically, if it's reversible they didn't die. They may have erroneously have been declared dead, but much in the same as above, it's that declaration that is reversed. The facts or definitions of death are untouched by this.

    None of these have bearing on what constitutes "death" in a legal sense.

    Wrong. This is a common misconception arising from metaphorical use of "death" in the vernacular. "I died during surgery" "I died on the table" etc. are purely conversational tropes that we employ for dramatic effect. They are not medical terminology per se, have no medical or legal meaning, and are NOT employed in the context of resuscitation (again, outside of common parlance for shorthand or dramatic effect). If you get resuscitated then you were never dead, by definition.

    Neither does it cover apparent death due to e.g. hypothermia or tetrodotoxin poisoning (some cases of which made it all the way to autopsy before being discovered), except metaphorically (same as above).
    You don't know what you are talking about. "Clinical death" is absolutely the real medical term and it is something people are resuscitated from.

    You don't want that. Because then all we have is him literally saying "I was legally dead". That's the only SURE thing we have. Maybe he lied, you say? OH YEAH, MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE
    I didn't say he lied. He said he was categorized as legally dead, and he would be... just like someone who committed a murder and then faked their death to avoid the police. That person would be "legally dead" too, but that doesn't magically make their actions not illegal.

    I assume you don't mean "legally dead" which is very much not that (as you yourself have pointed out, someone can have been declared legally dead and then have that declaration reversed) but "legally speaking, dead means irreversibly dead"?
    Legal death is when you are declared to be irreversibly dead.

    That's a problem in the MCU, because how do you KNOW? We know people can get resurrected in the MCU years after they died. It happened. What if, say, all the people who died over the last, say, 200,000 years all come back to life in 50 years because Dr. Strange screws up something? Does that mean they're currently not dead? It would have to mean that, because they COULD get resurrected, which means their deaths ARE reversible in principle, even if they're not actually reversed in practice. And that creates a lot of legal problems, because you can't just put all legal claims in abeyance while someone is dead, then resume them if and when their deaths get reversed and they are no longer dead. That would create a massive undue burden on the legal system - what about inheritance, contracts, criminal charges, etc. Do they just pause for everyone, just in case their death wasn't actually permanent? And if you DO stop things on what you THINK is irreversible death (even though it might turn out not to be), then why isn't Mr. Immortal off the hook for the same reason?

    That depends what you mean by "survive". One may well argue that he in fact does NOT survive, he just comes back from death. Same problem as above - it requires a lot of legal fine-print and interpretation to get right. You can't just gloss over it with a word like "survive" when the law is involved. Every detail matters.
    Since legal death is irreversible death, coming back means you are not legally dead and having the designation is invalid.

    Because we don't know MCU laws. We know OUR laws, but we don't know if they work the same. And we also don't know if our laws as they are written would, in fact, apply that way to someone like Mr. Immortal, if he really existed. As I've pointed out several times, there exist a multitude of possible legal arguments he could make against this. Whether or not they'd be successful in a court is another matter, but he could at least make a case for it. It's far from simple and obvious, because he breaks the a-priori assumptions of many legal definitions.


    It also involves "common medical consensus", usually. This is a necessary prong in the definition because what is and isn't "reversible" has changed historically, and is likely to keep changing. You could easily demonstrate to a judge that something like e.g. getting decapitated would indeed fall under "common medical consensus" of death. And then Mr. Immortal could just do that.

    The law lives and dies with details. Those are of great importance in jurisprudence, and they can change outcomes dramatically.

    You're creating something that doesn't exist. Reckless endangerment is a crime, as is forgery (usually). Whether or not faking your death is involved in it is immaterial. And as I said, those could well be past the statute of limitations by now, depending on the exact circumstances. Or could be technically crimes, but too difficult to prosecute to ever bring to trial (e.g. because it's too long ago, because you can't find witnesses, because evidence has been destroyed, etc.).
    He has numerous wives there who are not that old. Statute of limitations does not run out that fast. For fucks sake he jumps out of the window and smashes someones car and walks away RIGHT IN THE EPISODE. That is reckless endangerment too.
    "stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
    -ynnady

  19. #2019
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisei View Post
    It isn't grand proof of anything. Except that you are unable to read my friggin words. It is so frustrating to talk to a person that just twists what you say until they fit their agenda. If they even do you that curtesy and don't just call you a liar.

    Discussing things in this thread is really pointless. If you make a point that the mob can't refute then it is lie, if you interpret something differently then the mob would like then you are wrong and there is not even any point to talk about why. You are just wrong.

    Really, it is pathetic. If you people are so uninterested in the quality of shows, why do you even spend energy on it? Just so you can defend this trainwreck out of spite for "incels"?



    None of my claims are false. You just don't want them to be true and you choose to ignore everything that contradicts your pre-conceived opinion.

    Besides that. My rants serve a purpose. I want to make sure that Marvel never again delivers a piece of garbage like this. Since the backlash is getting louder and louder with every episode I would say that we are well on the way to that. I would be incredibly surprised if we see a second season of this show. If we do then only because Marvel is afraid of Twitter calling them out as misogynists.

    What is your goal? To defend a writer that doesn't give a crap about you and in fact is making tons of money from your blind acceptance of her lazyness?
    Then why did you post it? Did you think the opinion of one person could be used as a shield against the woke mob?

    Hi, Victim Card. How’s it going?

    I am interested in the quality if my shows. I am defending a show I like.

    You’ve yet to make a truthful post. It’s just the usual whining about how woke Hollywood is out to make men look bad. Seriously, your arguments were so predictable they were written into the show months ahead of time.

    Citation please. The only backlash I see is the usual gang of idiots. Hell, we’ve already seen one sock puppet account in this thread. Wasting energy on things you hate is a terrible way to live your life. Two and a Half Men got 12 seasons which sounds like a huge waste of time but some people evidentially enjoyed it. I never went into any Internet forum demanding it be cancelled. I just didn’t watch it mostly.

    As previously stated, it’s a show I like. If the usual gang of idiots didn’t insist on lying about it I mostly wouldn’t bother defending it.

  20. #2020
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    You don't know what you are talking about. "Clinical death" is absolutely the real medical term and it is something people are resuscitated from.
    I'm not sure who's the one who doesn't know what they're talking about here.

    "Clinical death" and "death" ARE NOT THE SAME THING. That's why an adjective is added. TO DISTINGUISH THE TERM FROM ACTUAL DEATH. "Clinical death" isn't just a subset of death, it's a very specific thing, i.e. the cessation of circulatory and respiratory function ONLY. Only that. It has a very narrow definition and very specific use, and it's not just a synonym for "death" because it has that in the term somewhere.

    What's next, are you saying I die every time I jack off because orgasm is "la petit mort"?

    Geez, man.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    I didn't say he lied. He said he was categorized as legally dead, and he would be... just like someone who committed a murder and then faked their death to avoid the police. That person would be "legally dead" too, but that doesn't magically make their actions not illegal.
    Not other crimes, no. But faking your death has no bearing on that anyway. In fact, it could be used in SUPPORT of his case - arguing that the courts actually recognized that he DID die, because the actions he took were not in and of themselves intended to only create the APPEARANCE of death. By the reasonable-person-standard usually employed, one might well argue that any reasonable person would unequivocally consider someone going through those events to have died. The fact that he was then alive again would require different consideration.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Legal death is when you are declared to be irreversibly dead.
    That's a very wrong statement in several ways. Irreversibility is ONE prong of many (and not all) legal definitions of "death". It's not the sole criterion, and in the case of the MCU it quite obviously CAN'T be, since as I pointed out, ~4bn people's deaths were, in fact, reversed.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    Since legal death is irreversible death, coming back means you are not legally dead and having the designation is invalid.
    You're just repeating the same vapid and legally shaky phrase. I gave very detailed explanations as to why it's not that simple. Why not engage with that? I went through the trouble of typing it out, and all. Just for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfiniteCharger View Post
    He has numerous wives there who are not that old. Statute of limitations does not run out that fast.
    Depends on the jurisdiction. Non-violent crimes can easily expire in only a few years in many jurisdictions. Non-violent felonies in Connecticut expire in 5 years. Anything but murder, kidnapping, and sexual violence expire in 6 years in Michigan. Felony fraud in California expires in 4 years. And so on.

    Did you not even google this before replying?
    Last edited by Biomega; 2022-09-26 at 09:48 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •