Jurassic Park db forum

The chronological context is a pretty significant factor in the argument. Would your opinion be different if the subject (in this case, Stebbins) committed the crime before the heroic deeds? Would they redeem him at all, or would the past just bleed out all potential and ultimately be completely unforgivable? (It would also be interesting to learn what events led up to the atrocity).<br /><br />Personally, I do not mind the movie character (particularly as he is a composite of multiple people who were there), but even if the crime happened before the heroics, I would deem the subject, well, sinister. But still not as terrible as if the criminal events transpired afterwards. In my opinion, there would be somewhat of a redeeming quality with the honourable deeds coming later.

I think it also matters how you find out about these things. People who hear about his criminal acts then watch the movie might hate him. I saw the movie before I heard about his criminal acts, so that may have an impact as well.

A good action doesn't make up for past evils and a evil action doesn't change a good one of the past. We are what we do, the man may have lost his honor due to his criminal acts but if what he did in Somalia was indeed heroic than he was a hero at the time... and in some way his past heroism is still with him even though his honor is not.

He's a hero, but he's a sick and twisted hero. Or, more specifically, a hero who has done sick and twisted things. I think I'd agree with Para's reasoning that &quot;there would be somewhat of a redeeming quality with the honorable deeds coming later.&quot; It seems to signify a change of character, perhaps. If, for example, Stebbins is charged with sexual assault, and later on in his life performs heroic acts in the military (although I'm sure that with the sexual assault record, admission to the military would be out of the question), then the heroic acts would be seen as a form of redemption. Therefore, yes, heroism supercedes a subject's flaws. However, in this case, the heroism came first. More or less, the most recent acts are those that determine the character, and more specifically, whether or not the person is a hero. Yes, they're a hero in the context of their heroic deed, but on an overally character basis—no. They've perfromed heroic acts, yes, but they themselves are not a hero.<br /><br />More or less just summing up what's already been said for the sake of personal clarification.

Who are we to judge who is a hero and who is not?

But anyway, heroism cannot supercede someones flaws, because either both the heroism and the flaws are part of that person, or else that person has changed since the acts of heroism or flaws.

If you know what I mean.....

Whoa... Old thread.

Yeah, I'd forgotten about this, and only remembered it when I saw my post /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

What in the world?! This thread is almost a year old.....

Damn newbies trying to catch up. /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

How the heck did this get back up here?

Anyway, since I read it and it provoked thought in me (albeit not very deep...)

One man's hero is another man's villian. One man's villian is another man's hero.