Batman
Character » Batman appears in 23648 issues.
Bruce Wayne, who witnessed the murder of his billionaire parents as a child, swore to avenge their deaths. He trained extensively to achieve mental and physical perfection, mastering martial arts, detective skills, and criminal psychology. Costumed as a bat to prey on the fears of criminals, and utilizing a high-tech arsenal, he became the legendary Batman.
Why does Batman have kid sidekicks?
@Resilient:
It was at first for the kids so they could better relate to the story since Batman was an adult they could live through the story as Robin. It has become clear that the sidekicks are important to Bruce when he is alone he gets more reckless. But have you seen the DCU? If they are some nameless person they would die in any one of their thousand disasters but if they are a hero then they might get resurrected.
" Why does Batman have little kids as sidekicks? Seems really wrong putting kids in danger like that. "Maybe because Robin was written into Batman in 1940 when comics cost a dime and were written for 10 year olds and the trope is a 70 year old icon?
That said, DCU child superheroes are presumed- and proven- competent by and large compared to the Marvel counter-parts. They typically quickly master their abilities and can serve as full-fledged heroes or team members without much issue.
G-Man did an Off My Mind on it where the topic was discussed.
For your reference, CV etiquette is to use the Search function up top (check the "Topics" filter) before posting a thread.
Becuase adult side kicks are weird and creeppppyyyyy. Batman Forever and Batman and Robin are the evidence
DCU child superheroes are presumed- and proven- competent by and large compared to the Marvel counter-parts. They typically quickly master their abilities and can serve as full-fledged heroes or team members without much issue.I tend to think that, in the real world, sending a child out to fight crime would be considered child endangerment. Even if they do have superpowers they lack a maturity that adult heroes, at least in theory, would have. The traditional relationship between Batman and Robin is something like a father and son relationship. I would like to see a husband and wife dynamic duo or something else that breaks out of the father and son mold.
Why Doesn't Captain America Get this Kind of Crap? He Had a Kid Go to WAR.
"lol!Why Doesn't Captain America Get this Kind of Crap? He Had a Kid Go to WAR.
"
" @Mainline said:With modern western thinking I definitely agree, but if you go a few decades back in our culture or if you borrow another culture's norms... even in our real world, kids who hit 13-16 (the typical sidekick age- or a Bat Mitzvah or other coming-of-age ceremonials) are more or less considered adults... able to hold down jobs, get married, go to war, etc. We sort of have a culture of elongated childhood where nearly every character on television is a man-child... and the kids who do take on a lot of responsibility young (willingly, of course) often lead extraordinary lives.DCU child superheroes are presumed- and proven- competent by and large compared to the Marvel counter-parts. They typically quickly master their abilities and can serve as full-fledged heroes or team members without much issue.I tend to think that, in the real world, sending a child out to fight crime would be considered child endangerment. Even if they do have superpowers they lack a maturity that adult heroes, at least in theory, would have."
My point is when the comics were first written there probably was less of an attitude about coddling children (for better or for worse) reflected somewhat in the comics which some kids I think could actually measure up to in real life (in terms of pressures not actual comic book adventures). This is a bit rhetorical, but as late as the early 80s, minors in New York City could ride the subway to school with a rifle on their back for after-school marksmanship club... they'd walk around Brooklyn with guns, no one would freak out, and get to school, the coach would lock the target gun away, and never was their an incident of violence or fear of it. In a post-zero tolerance culture a kid cutting paper in the shape of a gun might result in a call home. I'm not saying we're wrong and they were right, but I think there was definitely a different attitude towards what kids could handle in decades past.
In the Batman and Philosophy The Dark Knight of the Soul book there is an article about this. Basically it says that Batman uses a system called virtue ethics in determining whether or not to recruit someone as a Robin. They basically put it that he believes you should do whatever you can to help orphans and the best thing he can think to do is make them into Robin...interesting concept, but your question seems more aimed at the psychology of the aspect rather than the ethical dilemma...
" @Multiverse said:I think you make a good point regarding different attitudes toward childhood. It would be interesting to see a Batman story that deals with differences in attitudes toward childhood." @Mainline said:With modern western thinking I definitely agree, but if you go a few decades back in our culture or if you borrow another culture's norms... even in our real world, kids who hit 13-16 (the typical sidekick age- or a Bat Mitzvah or other coming-of-age ceremonials) are more or less considered adults... able to hold down jobs, get married, go to war, etc. We sort of have a culture of elongated childhood where nearly every character on television is a man-child... and the kids who do take on a lot of responsibility young (willingly, of course) often lead extraordinary lives.DCU child superheroes are presumed- and proven- competent by and large compared to the Marvel counter-parts. They typically quickly master their abilities and can serve as full-fledged heroes or team members without much issue.I tend to think that, in the real world, sending a child out to fight crime would be considered child endangerment. Even if they do have superpowers they lack a maturity that adult heroes, at least in theory, would have."
My point is when the comics were first written there probably was less of an attitude about coddling children (for better or for worse) reflected somewhat in the comics which some kids I think could actually measure up to in real life (in terms of pressures not actual comic book adventures). This is a bit rhetorical, but as late as the early 80s, minors in New York City could ride the subway to school with a rifle on their back for after-school marksmanship club... they'd walk around Brooklyn with guns, no one would freak out, and get to school, the coach would lock the target gun away, and never was their an incident of violence or fear of it. In a post-zero tolerance culture a kid cutting paper in the shape of a gun might result in a call home. I'm not saying we're wrong and they were right, but I think there was definitely a different attitude towards what kids could handle in decades past. "
mostly it seems to me like he's trying to right the same or like wrong with others that happened to him.
maybe he believes he can sharing his strength, resources and knowledge with another broken youth is the right
thing to do.
that and when your Batman, you don't carry the egg salad sandwich your going to eat on patrol break
in your belt, someone else does, wooOOOOOOOOOOOOIIIIIIEEEEEEE.....*sigh*
More importantly, that's not the story that's in the book. If that rationale were in play, Bruce would have always been combing the world for a young protégée... he could've have been adopting infants or orphans from the get go if that were his plan.
Rather, I think it's always been clear that Robin was serendipitous... Bruce saw a horrific crime that struck a nerve, reached out, and it was Dick's initiative that created Robin, not Batman's.
Batman did not seek out Robins. If your rationale was true then Batman would have always been on the lookout for people to train. Instead, all his Robins have been the result of unplanned accidents.
Batman arguably does not have a larger plan... that's part of his brokenness and part of his own madness reflected in his rogues all belonging to an asylum (seriously, who else has an entire rogues gallery populated almost entirely by mental patients?). Batman is not a utilitarian (barring his recent adoption of the Insider suit)... he doesn't use guns, he refuses to kill, and he doesn't use technological powers (despite the police using them, the law allowing for justifiable homicide, and the DCU tech-level making powers well within his grasp). He has not turned his great wealth towards exclusive use in public works, a private police, or social reform. He dresses up like a bat and resolves his issues against criminals with his fists. That is not, nor has it ever been, long term thinking.
I appreciate that you admire the Batman character and are looking for any way to argue his intelligence or nobility, but as far as the Robins are concerned it's just not there in the comics.
Obviously, Batman started out with a young sidekick (i.e., Dick Grayson). He has continued that trend into the present. However, there is no particular reason why he should do so. I am somewhat curious how someone like Selina Kyle or Talia al Ghul might work as Robin. Bruce Wayne definitely has a history with those two women, stories could explore different aspects of Bruce's character, and their abilities are pretty well established. I realize that (a) something like a husband & wife dynamic duo is a significant departure from the past and (b) it would take some doing to make it plausible but would you read the stories if a writer ever took things down that road?
Switching it to an equal female partner would be tricky, however, because despite the partnership of Dick and Bruce, even the most generous construction would call Bruce the first amongst equals... and a fairer assessment would be that Bruce calls the shots. Now how does that reflect on Batman if he's in a partnership with who is supposed to be his equal female companion and he's bossing her around and expecting absolute obedience and execution from her? The only equal-ish partnership Batman routinely maintains is in the World's Finest and even then it's not so much equal as it is separate- spheres, approaches, responsibilities, philosophies, expertise, attitudes, etc. If his partner is a blacksuit wearing roof-top running melee fighting powerless quasi-criminal Catwoman the overlap with Batman's spheres is too great... similarly with the pragmatic powerless Talia. The foil would practically have to be someone like Supergirl and if Batman is in a husband and wife like duo with his former student and best colleague's female counterpart... that just smells funny. :P
All that said, there was quite a lot of play between Bruce and Selina around and during the Heart of Hush storyline worth checking out for that dynamic. Fun, but it doesn't have the necessary hallmarks to last like the typical Dynamic Duo concept.
--
Edit: Wonder Woman, of course! I was so hung up on the World's Finest schema I went to the Super Family, but a person with sufficiently different spheres and enough authority (consider Zatanna would be different but still defer to Bruce) would be Wonder Woman. I think that's part of what made the speculation of such a romance make sense in the JLA book and Timm's JLU. But there's a bunch of other reasons why that combo doesn't work in the long run which goes beyond the scope of the topic.
Have you read the actual comics? If his plan was for another Bat that sort of went out the window when Dick decided to become Nightwing. Bruce made Gotham his city and his jurisdiction. If his plan was for his successor to own that it doesn't make any sense for him to allow Dick to go and form relationships, responsibilities, and a home / legacy in another city. Granted, the writers swept those connections away with nary a thought, but it doesn't make Bruce's plan sensible... if Dick had married or otherwise put down roots in Bludhaven, your theoretical plan for him would have been entirely stymied.
The funny thing about the "system" is that it is mostly defunct only in Gotham. They build museums to Flash, statutes to Superman, and apparently Bludhaven isn't so bad off that Dick doesn't mind leaving. The one place Batman decided to set up a war against crime is the same place unable to overcome it. If Batman really was about repairing the system and really was rationally utilitarian as you seem to be trying to argue, he would put less funding into things like Brother Eye or War Games or Tower of Babel plans and convert them towards private policing, social reform, and an open invitation to metahuman superhero families to do a shift in Gotham once a month (there's been a number of stories told in Batman's own books, where Superman holds down the fort for a night or two). You can't tell me that if you invited the whole Superman family, the whole Speed Force, the Earthbound GL Corp, etc. into Gotham on a rotating basis acting on Bruce's intelligence that they couldn't systematically wipe out any semblance of organized crime in Gotham (you simply cannot run a criminal enterprise if your warehouses, muscle, suppliers, and customers are getting busted up once a week). But that's not what happens.
Point being, if it's not on the page, it's not for you to "interpret" that way... otherwise, based on the above you could argue Batman is why Gotham is a failing system and he likes it that way.
Given that all of his Robins were unplanned, his "death" was unplanned, and that his alleged plan by you doesn't make particular sense in terms of actually stemming crime... I'd say willy nilly interpretation doesn't make Batman look like a planner.
The difference is that the heroes in other cities are mostly fighting super villains and not street crime, whereas Batman's rogues actually tend to be street criminals. If we're using the "interpret however I like" technique, then the system of crime fighting seems broken only in Gotham.
Yes, all of his Robins were unplanned. Bruce didn't say, "I need a Robin, I'm going to start looking for one and a young one at that... if a valid older candidate comes along I'll turn them aside because they're too old and likely to turn evil." I mean, that's so far and away from the books I'm not sure where you came up with that! Dick was the one who took the initiative to become Robin just like Tim did. The two times Bruce took the initiative to "create" a Robin with Jason and Steph ended in tears.All of his Robins were unplanned? Are you saying Bruce trained them to be a crimefighter on a whim?
Batman isn't a planner? Have you read JLA: Tower of Babel?Gotham isn't the only city that has street criminals. Green Arrow, Flash and Superman have busted street criminals before. Batman fights super villains too not just street crime.
"
I think about and question the motivations and actions about everything I read. I don't just read what's on the page and toss it aside.
Batman IS a planner as declaratively written. My point is that you're creating traits and motivations unwritten based on rather sketchy interpretation. If you take Tower of Babel for example (which, by the way I cited to several posts earlier) and use your method of interpretation (which invents beyond the page) then Batman's is an incredible idiot. Not only do his plans fall into enemy hands, not only are his plans easily traceable to him (providing little defense against a rogue League), but his plans are undone by League members, require League members to recover from, and don't include League members in their execution! For example, Kryptonite is NOT a plan, synthetic or otherwise. Calling it a plan is like saying Metallo is a planning genius by default. Moreover, the synthetic kryptonite only affects Superman's exposed skin... which routinely consists only of Superman's face and fists... a ski mask and gloves and a rogue Superman is not only not stopped but more powerful than before (able to absorb more energy) and still capable of using his powers with surgical precision (to remove Wally's bullet). If we interpret beyond the pages, the plan makes Batman look the fool.
What about using VR on the Goddess of Truth who has routinely shown the ability to see through illusions? Or requiring a bullet to hit Flash- first you have to surprise The Fastest Man Alive enough to hit him with a stunning attack, then you have to wait for him to recover just enough so that you can shoot him with your magic bullet, and then Wally has to vibrate for the bullet to work. If you fail to surprise, Flash blitzes. If he recovers too late you shoot a bullet into his spine and kill The Flash. If he recovers too soon you get blitzed. If you shoot it just on time but he decides to speed steal the bullet, dodge the bullet, catch the bullet, block the bullet, or do anything other than vibrate... the plan fails miserably. Or what about a plan that makes Plastic Man shatter requiring Flash to repair it- but not having plans that use Flash? A plan that requires J'onn to undo or leave Kyle or Arthur maimed for life- but not having plans that use J'onn? Again, if you go beyond the page, Batman looks ridiculous.
My point is that until the book tells us the Robin rationale it's unfair to say it's to build a network of Batmen particularly when that doesn't make sense as a rationale when lined up with past stories. If they tell us it is his rationale moving forward, that's another story, but it's not there yet.
As for the street crime, it's all in the proportion and overall effect. Again, museums in Central and Keystone, statutes in Centennial Park, but in Gotham? Perpetual street crime.
---
But let's take a step back and put it all in perspective. According to you, Batman has been intentionally poaching the youngest possible candidates for succession and then brainwashing them ("easy to mold" after all) to become his successors in a plan to turn the whole tide of a crumbling system. The success rate of this plan? One successor trained and gone with no certainty that Dick would don the cowl after him, two failed attempts, and one half trained successor with no contingencies for completing said training in the likely event of premature death for a mere mortal crime fighter who thinks himself the sole salvation of the system (rather than, say, any of the veritable immortals like Clark or Diana)... and a handful of rather unaffiliated and unplanned individuals like the fifth Robin, Knight & Squire, Batgirls, etc.
To pretend it was all a plan all along is far and away not what the books say or can be reasonably interpreted to say.
I see what you are saying about Batman potentially being too "bossy" for a female companion. That is partly why I suggested Selina and Talia as possibilities. It seems plausible to me that they might have the force of personality to challenge some of Batman's bossyness and thereby lead to exploration of different aspects of Batman's character. There is also the interesting aspect that Batman is willing to risk a child's life but, as I recall, has used the potential for danger as a justification for not entering a romantic relationship with a woman. This seems inconsistent to me. Call me crazy but one of the things that made me think of a female partner is that, if I were Batman, my first choice as a crime fighting partner would be my romantic partner.
@Mainline said: If Batman really was about repairing the system and really was rationally utilitarian as you seem to be trying to argue, he would put less funding into things like Brother Eye or War Games or Tower of Babel plans and convert them towards private policing, social reform, and an open invitation to metahuman superhero families to do a shift in Gotham once a month (there's been a number of stories told in Batman's own books, where Superman holds down the fort for a night or two). You can't tell me that if you invited the whole Superman family, the whole Speed Force, the Earthbound GL Corp, etc. into Gotham on a rotating basis acting on Bruce's intelligence that they couldn't systematically wipe out any semblance of organized crime in Gotham (you simply cannot run a criminal enterprise if your warehouses, muscle, suppliers, and customers are getting busted up once a week). But that's not what happens.
I like the idea of inviting other superheroes into Gotham on a rotating basis because (a) it takes Batman in a bit of a new direction and (b) because one of the things that bugs me about comics is that often, unlike the real police, one or two heroes will go up against a villain in a really dangerous situation.
@resilient said:
Why does Batman have little kids as sidekicks? Seems really wrong putting kids in danger like that.
First off it's not any kids.
Second, they've all gone thrugh rough times and he feels that by giving them a purpouse (who never dreamed of being a superhero ?) he will save them form going mad.
@jb681131 said:
@resilient said:
Why does Batman have little kids as sidekicks? Seems really wrong putting kids in danger like that.
First off it's not any kids.
Second, they've all gone thrugh rough times and he feels that by giving them a purpouse (who never dreamed of being a superhero ?) he will save them form going mad.
first part confuses me. They are just kids
second being a vilgalante should never be seen as a good thing Nor should you want to be one. its like saying I want to give kids purpose by putting them in a war or letting them be swat. There is a reason why we wait for kids to grow up for my jobs like this. it’s a self destroying job That you can get murdered over. If he feels they are going to go mad get them help, adopt them, teach them how to defend themselves and let them live a good life. Not a life full of crime.
If they decide to become heroes when they turn 18 fine but while they are kids let them be kids.
@dmnb2wavy said:
@jb681131 said:
@resilient said:
Why does Batman have little kids as sidekicks? Seems really wrong putting kids in danger like that.
First off it's not any kids.
Second, they've all gone thrugh rough times and he feels that by giving them a purpouse (who never dreamed of being a superhero ?) he will save them form going mad.
first part confuses me. They are just kids
second being a vilgalante should never be seen as a good thing Nor should you want to be one. its like saying I want to give kids purpose by putting them in a war or letting them be swat. There is a reason why we wait for kids to grow up for my jobs like this. it’s a self destroying job That you can get murdered over. If he feels they are going to go mad get them help, adopt them, teach them how to defend themselves and let them live a good life. Not a life full of crime.
If they decide to become heroes when they turn 18 fine but while they are kids let them be kids.
No, they are not just kids. They are kids with familly issues !
Well at least they have a purpose. I think it's better then letting them go insane. And yes he "adopted" some, yes he teached them "how to defend themselves".
But what is "let them live a good life" ? That's a big flaw in your argument.
Also is doing what the police fails to do, or can't do, or just didn't see really a "crime" as you say ?
@jb681131 said:
@dmnb2wavy said:
@jb681131 said:
@resilient said:
Why does Batman have little kids as sidekicks? Seems really wrong putting kids in danger like that.
First off it's not any kids.
Second, they've all gone thrugh rough times and he feels that by giving them a purpouse (who never dreamed of being a superhero ?) he will save them form going mad.
first part confuses me. They are just kids
second being a vilgalante should never be seen as a good thing Nor should you want to be one. its like saying I want to give kids purpose by putting them in a war or letting them be swat. There is a reason why we wait for kids to grow up for my jobs like this. it’s a self destroying job That you can get murdered over. If he feels they are going to go mad get them help, adopt them, teach them how to defend themselves and let them live a good life. Not a life full of crime.
If they decide to become heroes when they turn 18 fine but while they are kids let them be kids.
No, they are not just kids. They are kids with familly issues !
great so they are just still kids. I mean seriously do you realize how many kids in the world has some issues of any kind? None of those kids should resolve those issues by putting on tights and fighting crime.
Well at least they have a purpose. I think it's better then letting them go insane. And yes he "adopted" some, yes he teached them "how to defend themselves".
seriously? Having a purpose does not mean it’s good And no they would not go insane I mean seriously do you realize that people die in real life right? they will be traumatized sometimes but most of the time people bounce back from this stuff. Again they are kids, there are many different ways to help someone with out letting them destroy themselves.
But what is "let them live a good life" ? That's a big flaw in your argument.
how? There are many moral flaws in your argument Tho. Your basically saying is better to let kids join wars instead of getting them the right help and therapy. as for my argument the kids can just grow up in his mansion that is far from Gotham. when they are adults they can then move out of Gotham and as I said live a good life Or help batman when they become adults.
Also is doing what the police fails to do, or can't do, or just didn't see really a "crime" as you say ?
are you asking if being a vilgalante a crime?
well let me ask that again in a more descriptive way
are you asking if putting kids in places where adult men are shooting, smoking, raping, ext is a crime then yes.
being a crime fighter isn’t a good thing in the slightest. Now batman obviously does do what the police can’t I’ll Amit that but bringing kids into that is still morally wrong no matter what you say.
Also you need to be more clear when you text But regardless what batman does is morally wrong.
@dmnb2wavy said:
@jb681131 said:
@dmnb2wavy said:
@jb681131 said:
@resilient said:
Why does Batman have little kids as sidekicks? Seems really wrong putting kids in danger like that.
First off it's not any kids.
Second, they've all gone thrugh rough times and he feels that by giving them a purpouse (who never dreamed of being a superhero ?) he will save them form going mad.
first part confuses me. They are just kids
second being a vilgalante should never be seen as a good thing Nor should you want to be one. its like saying I want to give kids purpose by putting them in a war or letting them be swat. There is a reason why we wait for kids to grow up for my jobs like this. it’s a self destroying job That you can get murdered over. If he feels they are going to go mad get them help, adopt them, teach them how to defend themselves and let them live a good life. Not a life full of crime.
If they decide to become heroes when they turn 18 fine but while they are kids let them be kids.
No, they are not just kids. They are kids with familly issues !
great so they are just still kids. I mean seriously do you realize how many kids in the world has some issues of any kind? None of those kids should resolve those issues by putting on tights and fighting crime.
Well at least they have a purpose. I think it's better then letting them go insane. And yes he "adopted" some, yes he teached them "how to defend themselves".
seriously? Having a purpose does not mean it’s good And no they would not go insane I mean seriously do you realize that people die in real life right? they will be traumatized sometimes but most of the time people bounce back from this stuff. Again they are kids, there are many different ways to help someone with out letting them destroy themselves.
But what is "let them live a good life" ? That's a big flaw in your argument.
how? There are many moral flaws in your argument Tho. Your basically saying is better to let kids join wars instead of getting them the right help and therapy. as for my argument the kids can just grow up in his mansion that is far from Gotham. when they are adults they can then move out of Gotham and as I said live a good life Or help batman when they become adults.
Also is doing what the police fails to do, or can't do, or just didn't see really a "crime" as you say ?
are you asking if being a vilgalante a crime?
well let me ask that again in a more descriptive way
are you asking if putting kids in places where adult men are shooting, smoking, raping, ext is a crime then yes.
being a crime fighter isn’t a good thing in the slightest. Now batman obviously does do what the police can’t I’ll Amit that but bringing kids into that is still morally wrong no matter what you say.
Also you need to be more clear when you text But regardless what batman does is morally wrong.
great so they are just still kids. I mean seriously do you realize how many kids in the world has some issues of any kind? None of those kids should resolve those issues by putting on tights and fighting crime.
And do you realize how many kids are left out alone out there and end real bad ? Well I know, the answer, you don't realize. Maybe a little vigilanty work might have saved a few of them.
seriously? Having a purpose does not mean it’s good And no they would not go insane I mean seriously do you realize that people die in real life right? they will be traumatized sometimes but most of the time people bounce back from this stuff. Again they are kids, there are many different ways to help someone with out letting them destroy themselves.
Well it's better to have a purpose than to hang around doing nothing other than booze and drugs ! Yes people die, that's life. You'll die some day too ! You know, thoses kids that batman takes on, they have already been traumatized ! Because you know how to deal with a kid that has been beaten up or that has had his parent murdered in front of them ?
are you asking if being a vilgalante a crime?
You know why wearing a gun is legal in some place and not in other !? that's much wierder to me.
Are you asking if putting kids in places where adult men are shooting, smoking, raping, ext is a crime then yes.
Have you ever been to New York, LA, Miami, Chicago, Detroit, ... Thousand of kids live there and there are shootings, smoking and raping !
Also you need to be more clear when you text But regardless what batman does is morally wrong
Well, by some laws what he does might be illegeal. Morally, well, do you know what a moral is ? Principles of right and wrong - what is right or wrong is not fixed ! It depends on each one of us.
@jb681131 said:
@dmnb2wavy said:
@jb681131 said:
@dmnb2wavy said:
@jb681131 said:
@resilient said:
Why does Batman have little kids as sidekicks? Seems really wrong putting kids in danger like that.
First off it's not any kids.
Second, they've all gone thrugh rough times and he feels that by giving them a purpouse (who never dreamed of being a superhero ?) he will save them form going mad.
first part confuses me. They are just kids
second being a vilgalante should never be seen as a good thing Nor should you want to be one. its like saying I want to give kids purpose by putting them in a war or letting them be swat. There is a reason why we wait for kids to grow up for my jobs like this. it’s a self destroying job That you can get murdered over. If he feels they are going to go mad get them help, adopt them, teach them how to defend themselves and let them live a good life. Not a life full of crime.
If they decide to become heroes when they turn 18 fine but while they are kids let them be kids.
No, they are not just kids. They are kids with familly issues !
great so they are just still kids. I mean seriously do you realize how many kids in the world has some issues of any kind? None of those kids should resolve those issues by putting on tights and fighting crime.
Well at least they have a purpose. I think it's better then letting them go insane. And yes he "adopted" some, yes he teached them "how to defend themselves".
seriously? Having a purpose does not mean it’s good And no they would not go insane I mean seriously do you realize that people die in real life right? they will be traumatized sometimes but most of the time people bounce back from this stuff. Again they are kids, there are many different ways to help someone with out letting them destroy themselves.
But what is "let them live a good life" ? That's a big flaw in your argument.
how? There are many moral flaws in your argument Tho. Your basically saying is better to let kids join wars instead of getting them the right help and therapy. as for my argument the kids can just grow up in his mansion that is far from Gotham. when they are adults they can then move out of Gotham and as I said live a good life Or help batman when they become adults.
Also is doing what the police fails to do, or can't do, or just didn't see really a "crime" as you say ?
are you asking if being a vilgalante a crime?
well let me ask that again in a more descriptive way
are you asking if putting kids in places where adult men are shooting, smoking, raping, ext is a crime then yes.
being a crime fighter isn’t a good thing in the slightest. Now batman obviously does do what the police can’t I’ll Amit that but bringing kids into that is still morally wrong no matter what you say.
Also you need to be more clear when you text But regardless what batman does is morally wrong.
And do you realize how many kids are left out alone out there and end real bad ? Well I know, the answer, you don't realize. Maybe a little vigilanty work might have saved a few of them.
🤦🏽♂️Are you understanding what I’m writing? I know they are alone which is why batman can help them with getting jobs, going to a good school, food, a roof, ext.
how is become a vilgalante helping them? How is putting kids in situations where they can die is helping them? how is putting kids in situations where they can whiteness rape helping them? how is putting kids in situations where they will see murder helping them?
this makes literally no sense to any sane person which batman isn’t.
what is helping kids is giving them the right education, therapy, teaching them how to defend themselves, and getting them jobs when they become adults.
now that’s helping someone Not training kids to fight crime, that isn’t helping them. that is actually destroying them because BEING A VILGALANTE ISN'T A GOOD THING. Becoming a self respecting citizen is better for them
but as I said if they become adults and want to help batman then fine they are adults and can make that decision but as kids no. They should not be fighting crime
Well it's better to have a purpose than to hang around doing nothing other than booze and drugs ! Yes people die, that's life. You'll die some day too ! You know, thoses kids that batman takes on, they have already been traumatized ! Because you know how to deal with a kid that has been beaten up or that has had his parent murdered in front of them ?
your points makes no sense at all. Why would they be doing drugs And booze when batman is helping them? Do you actually believe that if they were not vilgalantes they can’t be helped in any way?
yes we know people die It’s natural but its Still no place for kids to be in. your basically saying bc it’s natural to die it’s okay for kids to be in a center of a war zone or on a crime scene which newsflash isn’t.
if they are traumatized help them with therapy and getting their life straight . Become Their legal guardian if they have no one and become their parent figure. Now that’s how you help a traumatized kid.
yes I can clearly Deal with a traumatized kid better than either you or batman if both of you think being a vilgalante is the only or best anwser
You know where a gun is legal in some place and not in other !? that's much wearder to me.
wow don’t care. I care about the adult who puts kids in situations where they can die.
Have you ever been to New York, LA, Miami, Chicago, Detroit, ... Thousand of kids live there and there are shootings, smoking and raping !
great so let’s take them out of there and help them that’s my point. I honestly don't know the point your making here but batman has the option to take the kids he makes side kicks out of those situations while those kids in Chicago or wherever are born into those situations and most of the time can’t leave those situations.
Well, by some laws what he does might be illegeal. Morally, well, do you know what a moral is ? Principles of right and wrong - what is right or wrong is not fixed ! It depends on each one of us.
Dude the only thing you can do is deflect. We both know putting kids in situations where they can be killed is morally wrong on any lvl.
There should be no opinion on that. It’s like asking if rape is wrong So let kids be kids.
@dmnb2wavy: Dude the only thing you can do is deflect. We both know putting kids in situations where they killed is morally wrong on any lvl.
No, I deflect nothing. And what you don't understand, is that - "help them with getting jobs, getting to a good school, food, a roof ext" - doesn't always work - I will only agree on the fact that he didn't try enough before including them in his cruisade.
And what you don't get is that you're only giving your opinion. With fact your arguments would be more effective.
how is become a vilgalante helping them? - well doing some activity is good for your health. Saving lives, is good for your moral. And none of them tryed to kill themselves or fell in drugs.
Why would they be doing drugs And booze when batman is helping them? - Well they've live trauma !
if they are traumatized help them with therapy - of course, therapy is the ultimate solution
wow don’t care - that's very sad !
I will only conceed, that he could have done more before including them in his night work. But I doubt he would have managed to heal them without including them in his cruisade.
@jb681131 said:
No, I deflect nothing. And what you don't understand, is that - "help them with getting jobs, getting to a good school, food, a roof ext" - doesn't always work - I will only agree on the fact that he didn't try enough before including them in his cruisade.
no You certainly do for most of what you said. you didn’t even acknowledge how wrong it is For kids to be witnessing murder. That’s a problem. your right tho it doesn’t always work, nothing never always work but you tell me which one sounds more good for a kid. Having a roof over your head where you can barely see any crime and getting a education or being a vilgalante where you see crime every day and can possibly die. Also your vilgalantes point is irrelevant when you admitted batman didn’t try hard enough.
And what you don't get is that you're only giving your opinion. With fact your arguments would be more effective.
please give me any real factual information that shows being a vilgalane is a stress reliever? because that sounds like the most unrealistic conclusion of a sane person Nor is it logical in the slightest.
how is become a vilgalante helping them? - well doing some activity is good for your health. Saving lives, is good for your moral. And none of them tryed to kill themselves or fell in drugs.
😑so are you legit denying the fact while they are saving people they would also see murder, rape, drugs,gang banging, and the worst parts of humanity? While also being capable of being murdered in the process? Like wtf that doesn’t even Make any sense. Your acting like Bruce can’t teach them how to be mortality right and can’t send them to school to make friends or play sports. There is far more to life than being a vilgalante so clearly no it isn’t good for them. You keep saying they would fall to drugs or kill themselves but tell me why would they when they have help in Bruce Wayne one of the richest people in Gotham who with the right therapy can stop them from doing either.
I’m not saying wealth makes you happy but it definitely helps a lot when they want to experience the more entertaining things in life. Like going to amusement parks, going to water parks, ext.
Why would they be doing drugs And booze when batman is helping them? - Well they've live trauma !
😂😂this was such a ignorant point I’m sorry but no just bc you experience trauma does not mean you would just go to drugs or booze especially when your under Bruce roof. Also being a vilgalantes would honestly seem more traumatizing and make you more likely to drink. I mean seriously Did you know that cops are more likely to kill themselves than the average folk or get ptsd?
so you tell me how putting kids in those same situations where even cops get traumatized is helping them.
if they are traumatized help them with therapy - of course, therapy is the ultimate solution
wow
wow don’t care - that's very sad !
what sad is you believe kids being vilgalantes is good for them.
I will only conceed, that he could have done more before including them in his night work. But I doubt he would have managed to heal them without including them in his cruisade.
oh Yeah including kids on his crusade vs murder, rape, drugs will definitely help them. Such a fine environment for kids.
anyway there Is no quanritee that anything but vilgalantism would help in fact I honestly believe it would realistically hurt them more than help them but it’s fictional so oh well.
Maybe Batman is a pedophile?
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment