HOME | DD

KeIIion [2018-05-09 17:07:03 +0000 UTC]

awesome

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Mohegan567 [2014-05-21 10:48:55 +0000 UTC]

I love the expression on you! Haha!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Bluedramon [2014-05-12 03:14:04 +0000 UTC]

I have a more or less neutral stance on that situation. And I'll explain my position below. 83

I can see being upset about the whole "he doesn't do anything; he just relaxes until the Kong family shows up and makes him lose his popsicle", especially since, if we look at this story-wise, it means all the monkeys are ganging up on that one bear, who appears to be doing nothing more than just relaxing. Yes, that is unfair and I understand why that can be distasteful.

However, the situation isn't so clearcut. Don't forget what the Kong family has been put through. If I remember right, they lost everything do the Snowmads (which includes this bear). They were already provoked beforehand. It wasn't like it was just their bananas. No, everything was lost to the Snowmads, and they are just claiming them back. The Kong family, if anything, has more of a reason to be angry than the bear. The Kongs lost their home; all the bear lost was a popsicle.

So I don't blame the Kongs one bit for beating up this bear, along with the other Snowmads. They had a good reason to be pissed off. They lost a lot more than just their bananas. If someone stormed into your place and took all your stuff, would you be so happy to see them the next time around? I wouldn't think so.

Do I think it's fair they ganged up on him? No. Ganging up on someone is never fair (although depending on the circumstance, it can be justified). And if all the bear really did was eat a popsicle (including any time when he wasn't; like if he never actually did any genuine harm and wasn't activately involved in stealing the stuff from the Kongs), then yes, them beating him up would be considered disproportionate retribution (a trope in which the punishment is more excessive than the crime). Yeah, I don't blame the Kongs for attacking the bear since all their stuff was stolen, but I don't necessarily think it's right, if the bear really didn't cause as much harm as the other bad guys.

If the situation were reversed, and if it was a gorilla who was the bad guy who, like the bear, didn't do anything other than eat a popsicle, and a family of bears came and beat him up, my view would still be the same, more or less. I would regard it as unfair the bear ganged up on the gorilla, but also understand why since, like Donkey Kong, their entire home was taken by this monkey and his comrades. Unfair is unfair. It doesn't matter the species. A situation should not suddenly become morally right or morally wrong just because of the species involved. If a deer character gangs up and beats the shit out of a weak wolf character, I am not going to root for the deer, even though the wolf would kill and eat the deer if it were healthy. Actions dictate who I end up siding with, not species.

That's pretty much my view on the whole "Kong vs polar bear" situation. I'm not trying to guilt you for drawing a vent art. Sometimes, you just have to vent and let loose. I was just trying to throw in my few cents and why I have a neutral stance as opposed to siding completley with Kong or with the bear. I prefer to try to look at things from both sides rather than just pick a side. Listening to both sides doesn't require having to agree with both, but it does help bring more understadning to the situation. If you want to be angry at Donky Kong, go ahead. 83 Just please at least understand that Donkey Kong had a good reason to be upset and didn't attack the bear entirely unprovoked.

That's all I have to say on the matter. I hope I didn't upset you. 83

👍: 0 ⏩: 1