User Avatar Image

Crawford Vs Ben (or Survival Vs Humanity)

posted by Ninnuendo on - last edited - Viewed by 751 users

I don't want to write too much in this topic for fear of influencing the poll but I'm interested looking at the Ben question through the prism of Crawford Survivalist Philosophy.

Ben
He's a young kid, he's an idiot, he's put you in danger multiple times but he's not bad, he's well meaning, he has the potential to be useful and will keep trying to be.
Now Ben has split this forum into 2 camps.

Those who would drop him because he's a threat or because he already screwed up & those who would save him out of compassion or his potential use. This particular issue is very relevant to the supporters and opponents of the way Crawford is run.

What I want to know is this

Did you support or agree with Crawfords policy of removing potential threats?
&
Did you drop Ben?

I'd really like forum answers to this and explanations, don't just vote and leave.

Poll is coming in a moment

67 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Ninnuendo said: I'm surprised by the current polls. I set it up with the knowledge that there are 2 consistent philosophical views and I expected them to be paired up. What's actually happened is a kind of philosophical hypocrisy.

    Support Crawford/Drop Ben - No Votes 0%
    This is the most surprising choice. The lack of Crawford supporters is probably a good thing but becomes bizarre when you look below.

    Support Crawford/Save Ben - 4 Votes 7.55%
    We have 4 Crawford supporters, and all of them saved Ben. What the hell? Seems like a strange contradiction but it's about to get even stranger

    Reject Crawford/Drop Ben - 10 Votes 18.87%
    The Humanists (or Crawford objectors) are more likely to drop Ben than the survivalists. It's truly strange that people would be against Crawford and then follow through with exactly that attitude, for someone that even Crawford probably wouldn't kill. Keep in mind that Ben isn't ill, is the right age and is malleable.

    Reject Crawford/Save Ben - 39 Votes 73.58%
    No surprise on this one, the consistent humanists are the largest group.

    (stupid teen skater voice) whhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttt????

  • Reject Crawford/Save Ben

    Crawford took survival to a stupid level that was bound to fail.
    Ben still has potential to shine. I believe in the kid.

  • @Ninnuendo said: Reject Crawford/Drop Ben - 10 Votes 18.87%
    The Humanists (or Crawford objectors) are more likely to drop Ben than the survivalists. It's truly strange that people would be against Crawford and then follow through with exactly that attitude, for someone that even Crawford probably wouldn't kill. Keep in mind that Ben isn't ill, is the right age and is malleable.

    Nothing hypocritic here, these folks would have no problem accepting folks like Vernon's people into their group while Ben on the other hand isn't just useless, he gets people killed. And Crawford would definitely give Ben the boot once he does something stupid in the typical Ben fashion.

  • @Phoenix VII said: Nothing hypocritic here, these folks would have no problem accepting folks like Vernon's people into their group while Ben on the other hand isn't just useless, he gets people killed. And Crawford would definitely give Ben the boot once he does something stupid in the typical Ben fashion.

    Crawford wouldn't boot out Ben.

    He'd "accidently" fuck up and kill them all before they could :D

  • @Phoenix VII said: Nothing hypocritic here, these folks would have no problem accepting folks like Vernon's people into their group while Ben on the other hand isn't just useless, he gets people killed.

    In amongst Vernon's group are 3 people who are sick. They'd take those people in, knowing they could die in the night, but let the healthy teenager die? It's completely hypocritical to take the stance as a humanist, then pick and choose who dies, that's exactly what Crawford does.

  • @Ninnuendo said: In amongst Vernon's group are 3 people who are sick. They'd take those people in, knowing they could die in the night, but let the healthy teenager die? It's completely hypocritical to take the stance as a humanist, then pick and choose who dies, that's exactly what Crawford does.

    Their cancers were in remission, and giving Ben the boot after he gets 5 people killed, 4 of them group members, as well as coming within a hair of getting Lee's entire group killed during the Crawford raid isn't just picking and choosing who dies, it's eliminating the greatest threat to the group's survivability before he screws up again. And keep in mind that none of Ben's screw-ups are minor, he screwed up 3 times by my count and each time at least 1 person died.

  • ben would be accepted into the crawford society, he wasn't ill or old or a child, he was a healthy teen/young adult, exactly what crawford would want

  • @thestalkinghead said: ben would be accepted into the crawford society, he wasn't ill or old or a child, he was a healthy teen, exactly what crawford would want

    He would've. Lasting there is another matter, maybe he would've been fine, but if he makes a stupid mistake that gets someone killed then I'd imagine in a place like Crawford he'd get the firing squad.

  • @Phoenix VII said: Their cancers were in remission

    Vernon says they're sick and they obviously wouldn't have had a significant checkup in some time.

    @Phoenix VII said: giving Ben the boot after he gets 5 people killed, 4 of them group members, as well as coming within a hair of getting Lee's entire group killed during the Crawford raid isn't just picking and choosing who dies, it's eliminating the greatest threat to the group's survivability before he screws up again. And keep in mind that none of Ben's screw-ups are minor, he screwed up 3 times by my count and each time at least 1 person died.

    Let's just examine this for a moment.

    Ben actually succeeds in protecting the group. He supplies the bandits and they stay away. Duck and Katjaa aren't his fault, they're Lillys (and by extension, Kennys).
    You also can't really blame him for Carley or Doug, he tries in every way to get out of that situation without getting killed. Once again the blame lays with Lilly (and by extension, Kenny)
    He's somewhat responsible for Chuck, but Chuck made that choice.
    As for Bree, yeah he's at fault but once again he's just doing what he's told. I blame Gary Whitta for that one.

  • I reject Crawford's policy. They didn't make sense to me, especially with not wanting any children. How can you expect the human race to survive that way? People are people, and to look at the mthe way they did is very sickening and cold.

    I didn't let Ben die...even if he was a pain in the ass, I just couldn't let him die..even when it came down to voting him out of the group I just couldn't do it because that is the same as killing him. I hate the guy really especially when he got scared and didn't help Clem and when he took the axe out from the door.. Even so, it just seems wrong to kill Ben. He didn't directly kill Duck or Kaatja..hell, he was pretty naive but in the end the kid just wanted to see his friend again. He never had malicious intentions. I'm sure Kenny would have done something if bandits had his son or wife..
    I believe in redemption, I think Ben will be a great person to have on your side in episode 5.

Add Comment