"Do you think you could have chosen between them if you had the chance?" [Archive]

ckfan

01-30-2006, 08:32 AM

I think it was a good line.

Martha was trying hard to make sure that Clark did not feel guilt for what happened. It's true that Jonathan has given a lot more to Clark than Lana has, but in Clark's eyes, Lana is the love of his life and someone that he has always protected. So it would be an impossible choice.

And the way it actually did play out, he had no other choice but to take the crystal for Lana. How could he live with himself, knowing that he could have chosen to prevent that horrible car wreck? If he didn't use it, it would be like choosing to let her die, and that would be too much direct guilt to bear. If he could save her, he had to!

Clark's reasoning is that he has to do everything in his power at any time to save someone. He can't weigh the relative value of one person's life against another - because you never know for sure what the future will hold. I think that's what his parents have consistently told him through the years. You take each day and each decision one at a time and do what you think is best.

smallvillefan26

01-30-2006, 08:39 AM

KRAM-el

01-30-2006, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by ckfan
I think it was a good line.

Martha was trying hard to make sure that Clark did not feel guilt for what happened. It's true that Jonathan has given a lot more to Clark than Lana has, but in Clark's eyes, Lana is the love of his life and someone that he has always protected. So it would be an impossible choice.

And the way it actually did play out, he had no other choice but to take the crystal for Lana. How could he live with himself, knowing that he could have chosen to prevent that horrible car wreck? If he didn't use it, it would be like choosing to let her die, and that would be too much direct guilt to bear. If he could save her, he had to!

Clark's reasoning is that he has to do everything in his power at any time to save someone. He can't weigh the relative value of one person's life against another - because you never know for sure what the future will hold. I think that's what his parents have consistently told him through the years. You take each day and each decision one at a time and do what you think is best.

I DISAGREE 100%. So much for "tough love" on MK's part. Clark is what -- 18? How can you NOT value the time spent w/ your father (albeit foster) ESPECIALLY when YOU caused his heart condition in the first place? And we ALL know, loves can come & go -- I don't think there are that many of us still with the "first loves" in our lives... I'm sure there are some, but not many. He doesn't seem to get the picture as well that hiding his secret doesn't work -- but not w/ THIS dolt of a Clark Kent (again, terrible characterization by the writers). THEY don't want him to win, let's face it. He still has plenty of time to sort things out & get into a 'firm' relationship. But our bumbling hero is so "blinded" by love that he instead makes the ultimate wrong choices -- He saves Lana & then betrays her, and loses his father in the process. I have to agree with another poster's viewpoint in another thread in this forum... This connotation of Clark Kent is an idiot. And it's a tradgedy. :(

jag5311

01-30-2006, 09:09 AM

wow, harsh. Ouch!

I am in the group that felt her line was appropriate.

Just to throw a question into the wind.

You are told to choose between your father who has raised you properly and great over the course of your life or your wife whom you have been married to for 1 year and whom you are deeply in love.

So you would choose your father in an instant huh?

Point is, Clark was not given a choice of who would live or die. All he knew was he had to save his girlfriend. He didn't know fate was going after his father next.

If I had to choose between my father or my wife on who would live/die, I would give up my own so they both could live. So would Clark and I don't think we would the show would ever put him in that kind of decision making position.

Again, I thought MK line was fine because she was trying to console Clark and let him know it wasn't his fault.

How many of you have lost someone you love? If someone stuck 2 people you love on a slab and said choose, would it really be that easy of a choice as you make it sound?

Sure JK raised Clark and CK loves his father. He also has been in love with Lana since he was 7 and previously asked her to marry him in the first scenario. Clark would give up his own life (if possible) in order for the others to survive.

No offense, but some of you come off as very heartless.

smallvillefan26

01-30-2006, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by KRAM-el
I DISAGREE 100%. So much for "tough love" on MK's part. So you would consider it "tough love" if MK fed her son's guilt by saying he should have chosen his father (which has pointed out, he could not do, since he did not know he would die)? That is absolutely not what I would consider tough love and would be completely out of character for MK.

KrissO

01-30-2006, 09:20 AM

I'm trying hard to believe KRAM-el, really, but I don't.
I support ckfan on this one, especially your last paragraph.

No one knew how Clark felt in that situation.
If we ignore the topic about that he didn't know for certain who he was going to sacrifice, yes then we could all be wise after the event, *cough*, and say that his choice should have been obvious; his father.
Yes if it weren't for someones father you wouldn't even be alive (biologically or not, who cares).
Your familly is also someone who will never leave you because of their love to you.
Think the only difference is that Clark's decision was made with his heart, not his mind. Can't blame him for that.
Then again, it was all about the moment. It wasn't really a decision Jor-El gave him some time to think over.

I am 100% certain no one here will be or has been put in that situation anyway (I don't hope that either tbh) so no one really has the experience to express themselves on this matter.

Jonathan was going to die anyway, just face it.
What if only Jonathan had died and that's it ? Lois and Lana weren't even part of the episode.
People would STILL find a way to bring Lana into it all, amazing.

Now lets look at Lana. what exactly did SHE ever do for Clark except give him sexual pleasures?

Grow up.

UpandAtom

01-30-2006, 09:29 AM

The fact is that Clark has known Jonathan and Lana his whole life. He can't be be asked to choose between two people that he deeply cared about.

KRAM-el

01-30-2006, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by KrissO
I'm trying hard to believe KRAM-el, really, but I don't.
I support ckfan on this one, especially your last paragraph.

No one knew how Clark felt in that situation.
If we ignore the topic about that he didn't know for certain who he was going to sacrifice, yes then we could all be wise after the event, *cough*, and say that his choice should have been obvious; his father.
Yes if it weren't for someones father you wouldn't even be alive (biologically or not, who cares).
Your familly is also someone who will never leave you because of their love to you.
Think the only difference is that Clark's decision was made with his heart, not his mind. Can't blame him for that.
Then again, it was all about the moment. It wasn't really a decision Jor-El gave him some time to think over.

I am 100% certain no one here will be or has been put in that situation anyway (I don't hope that either tbh) so no one really has the experience to express themselves on this matter.

Jonathan was going to die anyway, just face it.
What if only Jonathan had died and that's it ? Lois and Lana weren't even part of the episode.
People would STILL find a way to bring Lana into it all, amazing.

Grow up.

OK, you've all backed me into a corner, so I have to defend myself...

Would I choose my father over a wife of one year? Yes. I lost my father at 20, & HE was MY hero (and no, I'm NOT the cold-hearted b*****d you seem to think I am)

As far as making the choice, I had to make the choice of unplugging life support on BOTH of my parents (at way too young an age - I'm an only child) 11 years apart. So don't pander me w/ that "what decision would you make in a tough situation?" stuff (pardon my anger here, but my dander is up).

There is alot to be said about "tough love". Whether you agree w/ it or not, I stand firm on that issue...

Lastly, it IS only a TV show... let's turn this back into a "discussion" forum (an exchange of ideas), & not a personal "Bash-Fest"... can we?

jclay12345

01-30-2006, 09:40 AM

I think it was a good line. You never know how you will act in a situation like that. On one hand you have the person you love that you want to spend the rest of your life with, on the other hand you have the person you love that has spent your whole life with you. That's a real tough decision and I hope I would never be put in a position like that.

smallvillefan26

01-30-2006, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by KRAM-el
There is alot to be said about "tough love". Whether you agree w/ it or not, I stand firm on that issue...

Lastly, it IS only a TV show... let's turn this back into a "discussion" forum (an exchange of ideas), & not a personal "Bash-Fest"... can we? I was never talking about you personally. I apologize if it came out that way. I agree that tough love can be effective. I was simply saying that tough love in that situation would have been cold and contrived on MK's part. I'm debating about whether or not MK's line was appropriate (the thread's original discussion) and I don't see tough love as an alternative response by MK to the situation, as I assumed that's what you were suggesting.

Okay, to discuss: maybe you can clarify. By tough love, what did you mean? How would you have wanted Martha to react other than how she did?

son2380

01-30-2006, 09:45 AM

Clark did say that he would have rathered stayed dead instead of taking the life of someone he loved. But if he would haven went back to teh FOS then he wouldn't be burdened with this problem.

angelus666

01-30-2006, 10:12 AM

When you Think about it Clark probably would have chosen Lana because 1.) Jonathan's time would have already been very limited because of his heart condition. 2.) The fact that Jonathan has already lived a long life compared to Lana who is 18/19. 3.) Clark loved Lana enough to ask her to marry him and tell her his secret. Don't get me wrong it would have been a hard choice for Clark but if he was to choose one over the other I think he would choose Lana.

No-El

01-30-2006, 10:21 AM

Knowing Clark, he would have struggled first to find some way first to save BOTH before realizing only one could be spared!

As for me, I would have saved Jonathan if I had the chance....PERIOD!

jag5311

01-30-2006, 10:29 AM

I realize my "heartless comment" may itself have sounded harsh but the way you worded things kinda came off like that. I myself lost a parent at a young age, my mother when I was 15 as well as 6 other family members within a 2 year span of losing my mom).

I am 25 now.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that some people make it sound like it's an easy decision to make on a dime and I know it wouldn't be.

Kram-El, I am deeply sorry for your loss, being in a similar position as you I know your grief.

All about Clark

01-30-2006, 10:39 AM

I agree with Martha's line, and he couldn't have made that choice.

As for me, I always have believed in protecting the youngest, that's just me, so in my eyes the right choice was made. Secondary, Jonathan's time was limited due to heart condition and Lionel was going to have his meeting whether Lana died or not.

I think the difference is that Clark felt so responsible for Lana's demise due to the telling of the secret, whereas Jonathan's demise was not directly caused by Clark, but by Lionel, even thougth indirectly caused by Clark because of his choice to disobey Jor-el. Personally Jor-el is quite the basterd for doing all this to his son. But I guess he felt he had to for the greater good.

knight150

01-30-2006, 10:43 AM

I dont even think there is a question about who to save. He knew that someone had to die, i would have accepted lana cause he already dealt with losing her now he just has to move on. After he chose to save lana he had to prepare himself again. I dont care what anyone says, he knew he was choosing his dad, or someone else he really loves. i would have just gotten over lana. You never choose your GF over your own Dad. Its immorial if u ask me

rocky_841

01-30-2006, 11:47 AM

first of all to Kriss0, the "grow up" statement was not very nice, since none of us knows the age of anyone else here for sure. Please try to state your opinion without offending others. thanks.

secondly i notice many are making references to what clark actually did in the episode and talking about whether he did right or not, which is not what this thread is about. you have the "clark is a murderer" thread for that. this thread is about that statement that martha made, which implied that, to Martha's best knowledge, the survival of lana and jonathon is equally important to clark, which i think should not be under any circumstances.

i have already stated what jonathon has done for him. risked his life for him again and again. i missed the covenant reference where jorel was threatening to kill jonathon unless clark stepped in the wall. yet jonathon was telling clark not to, and was willing to happily die for him right there. why does clark love jonathon? because of all the things he has done for him. because for how much love jonathon has given him, because of all the things he taught him. clarks love for jonathon is out of duty, respect. gratefulness, and morality

now lets come to lana. remember shattered? she was stomped by a horse that wasnt even clarks fault and she was already starting to abandon clark. first sign of trouble and she retreats. now maybe she deserves love from clark, but can anyone honestly say she deserves as much love from clark as the man who wud gladly give up his life of him any way of the week? i dont think so. after everything jonathon has done for clark, it shud take a lot more than a bit of lana charm to be able to fill those shoes. so why does clark love lana? well, simple she is the love of his life, the woman he wants to spend his life with. clarks love for lana is not out of respect or morality, rather out of lust and desire. and therefore this love is selfish, as opposed to the other one. lana didnt earn this love. rather clark manifested it out of desire. and that is why it is selfish.

so the only way lana can be even nearly as important to clark as jonathon, is through sheer selfishness. far too much for the future superman to be. if clark was even remotedly selfless like he is supposed to be, he should be able to choose jonathon over lana any day of the week. remember, this is more like a "gratefulness" versus "desire" choice.

also many are talking about father versus 1 year married wife. not all fathers wud risk their life for u every other day like jonathon. and lana isnt his wife yet. she is only a possibility. so far she is on girlfriend status. and like someone mentioned, girlfriends come and go. so do not compare this to father vs wife, because niether is jonathon like your average father, nor is lana his wife. we are talking about two specific characters from clarks viewpoint based on what they have done on the show so far.

also many are saying that he shouldnt be able to make the choice since he loves both. now i agree with that, but we are talking about who he would choose if he were FORCED to choose. say he was told unless he made a choice, both would die. and that is where "who is more important to clark" will come into play.

and of course no one is saying it would be an easy choice. obviously it should be very hard since he loves both, but the end choice should be obvious.

one more thing, is it just me or was clark a lot more upset when lana died compared to when jonathon died? when lana died he looked like he was ready to tear down the world in anger. but wen JK died, he looked like his father simply became sick or something, no big deal. that also bothered me. it felt like he was simply addicted to lana like everything else is secondary.

KRAM-el

01-30-2006, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by jag5311

Kram-El, I am deeply sorry for your loss, being in a similar position as you I know your grief.

jag5311, Thank you, but I hold no grudges. ;) My grief has tempered over time (1983 & 1994, respectively). I am now 43. I do sympathize w/ you, as well.
But, I digress...
As for the 'Tough Love' issue, even a combo of the 2 would have been better, IMHO. No, I wasn't thinking of anything like the "Moonstruck" scene (C'mon, *slap* Snap out of it!) although in retrospect that would have been hilarious (just kidding!) :p
I just didn't get as much out of it because it's just more of the same plot MO -- make Clark even more depressed & needy, & not as a catalyst to spurn him into action (I get very frustrated w/ the "lowest common denominator" solution this show takes). As I've stated before many times, I just can't (at this moment at least) jump onto Clarks bandwagon. At least Lex Luthor (except for Reckoning) is a determined and strong personality (and an egomaniacal homicidal maniac, woo-hoo) that I wish TPTB would rub off onto Clark. Enough of Clark wearing his heart on his sleeve. Please, oh please, write some INTELLIGENCE into this show... you might be surprised at the results...

ckfan

01-30-2006, 12:07 PM

I think the reactions were appropriate. With Lana, it was intense shock and horror at the bloody scene, etc. and he had just had his most intensely happy day with her - planning to spend the rest of his life with her, etc. It was just a time to lose all control.

With Jonathan, it wasn't as much of a shock (the actual death), but certainly cuts very deep. I think it hurts him so much that he probably could not even emote at all. It is more of an anger and loneliness displayed in his face (I think) and deep-seated realization that his "darkest days" are upon him. I think we will see him crying next week over Jonathan - but sometimes a first reaction is to feel so deeply wounded and somber that you cannot cry. You are simply numb.

Back to the topic, though, just one more thing about the wisdom of Martha's comment about the "choice." I can't believe that any one of us - if we had the chance to immediately reverse a horribly tragic accident that we just witnessed - would choose not to. Even if you knew that somewhere, sometime another life would be taken. To do that would put YOU in the position of having made the choice (rather than "fate" or some other force of nature), and no one could live with that.

I know that if Clark were faced with the straight up option of losing either Lana OR his father, he would first offer himself willingly as a sacrifice to save them both. If that didn't work, he would refuse to make the choice.

Smallvillian

01-30-2006, 01:13 PM

OK. Let me see...Jonathan has raised and protected Clark his whole life. He has offered to lay down his own life for him too many times to count. He's loved him. Held him when he was frightened as a child. Wiped his tears. He was probably Clark's only playmate for a while--until Clark learned to control his powers. Remember the "playing tag with dad" story in the body swaping episode? He has gone to prison in the name of protecting his child. He has been everything to Clark.

Now there's Lana. From what I can tell, he barely spoke to her until he was 14 years old. Before that he peeped at her through his telescope. During the next four years, she can't make up her mind over Whitney or Clark and strings them both along for a while. She finally decides on Clark. But that doesn't stop her from accusing him of things and being constantly concerned with only herself. She even blames him for an accident that he had nothing to do with--even though she supposedly thought of Lex as a friend as said she wanted to help. Whatever. Then she lives with a man and offers to sleep with him and later claims that Clark is the only man she ever loved. Even though they've technically dated for less than a few months and she had no problem dumping snarkiness on him until that time.

Hhmmmm. Who should Clark choose?

I gotta say Jonathan.

And what is up with people saying Jonathan lived a full life? The man didn't even have a gray hair yet. He was mid-forties at best.

And the heart condition--Others are supposing a *lot* about when Jonathan would have died. Let's take a look, shall we? Jonathan has been beat on more than a dirty rug since his surgery. This season alone he's been hit with an energy blast the size of Texas, beaten and strung upside down from the ceiling. If we're going to look at the facts, let's look at ALL of them. He did NOT have one foot in the grave. Let's go one step further and even suppose the medicine would have only kept him going another 2 years. Who's to say that by then better options and better medicine would not be available to have extended his life by decades? Just because he had a heart condtion and took medicine for it does not mean he was going to die any minute. All evidence is to the contrary, actually. It would seem to me that he died ONLY because a death was owed to Clark.

Martha's line was horrible no matter how you reason it out.

All about Clark

01-30-2006, 01:38 PM

I'm amazed at how many different opinions there are. It appears that each of us use a particular characters point of view for their reasons.

I happen to like what Martha said that Clark couldn't chose and I think that's accurate. That's her point of view and we should respect it even if you don't agree with it.

Jebriggs98

01-30-2006, 01:43 PM

I think that it was always going to be Jonathon who's life was exchanged for Clark's and that Lana's death was a coincidence. Clark needs to learn that he can't control someone else's destiney, the guy can't even get his own right at this point.

johnny fogg

01-30-2006, 01:48 PM

Er...he did choose. He chose Lana, without hesitiation, even when Jor-El said someone else would die. I think a parent might do that for their kid, or even a fanatical lover for their soulmate, but why future superman?

He should have let Lois die. It's not like they're doing anythign all that great with her. Campaign manager...yeah, that's brilliant.:mad:

smallvillefan26

01-30-2006, 01:57 PM

Yall should take a look at the thread "Wait, this all makes sense now!" (or something along those lines) if you haven't already. It's a really interesting discussion on fate and why Lois and Lana survived while Jonathan died.

I still feel that Martha's line was appropriate for her character. I do recognize that not all people would say something like that and I even understand that some people think it's awful. But for Martha, I think it was appropriate.

KRAM-el

01-30-2006, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by johnny fogg

He should have let Lois die. It's not like they're doing anythign all that great with her. Campaign manager...yeah, that's brilliant.:mad:

It's LOIS that killed Jonathan!!! Off with HER head!!!! :D :lol:

All about Clark

01-30-2006, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by johnny fogg
Er...he did choose. He chose Lana, without hesitiation, even when Jor-El said someone else would die. I think a parent might do that for their kid, or even a fanatical lover for their soulmate, but why future superman?

Clark didn't chose. Clark simply saved everyone he could until he couldn't anymore. I think it was harder for him to do nothing.

No-El

01-30-2006, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by johnny fogg
Er...he did choose. He chose Lana, without hesitiation, even when Jor-El said someone else would die. I think a parent might do that for their kid, or even a fanatical lover for their soulmate, but why future superman?

He should have let Lois die. It's not like they're doing anythign all that great with her. Campaign manager...yeah, that's brilliant.:mad:

No doubt the decision is hard, which explains you side stepping and not answering the question.

But for me I would have chosen JK to live!

johnny fogg

01-30-2006, 02:16 PM

Ngah. Clark was going to keep saving people FOREVER?? Eventually someone would die who wasn't meant to! I don't even want to think about Clark's motives anymore. No answer is a good answer. He was a moron.

No-El

01-30-2006, 02:20 PM

BamaGN

01-30-2006, 02:21 PM

I dont think Clark chose anyone. We all know that Jonathan dies. Whos to say that even if he didnt save Lana, Jonathan still would have gone to meet Lionel. He still would have argue and fought Lionel and probably died. Clark would have lost two people this episode.

I could be wrong, but I remember seeing Jonathan taking some kind of medication, like nitro glycerin, in the episode where he is almost assassinated.

johnny fogg

01-30-2006, 02:23 PM

Reckoning....really stupid, or really DEEP??...

I don't think I buy the arguement that by saving Lana "Clark actually saved two people! That way JK's death wasn't in vain! Yeah that's the ticket".

KRAM-el

01-30-2006, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by johnny fogg
He was a moron.

:rotfl: I wish I could give you originality on that one, but I think it's been noted about 200 times in these threads... :lol: Not that you're wrong, because you're not. :rotfl:

johnny fogg

01-30-2006, 02:32 PM

Ok, he was a lunkhead.

I like the sound of that. Big dumb lunkhead.

All about Clark

01-30-2006, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by johnny fogg
Ngah. Clark was going to keep saving people FOREVER?? Eventually someone would die who wasn't meant to! I don't even want to think about Clark's motives anymore. No answer is a good answer. He was a moron.

He certainly tried to keep saving people.

I really have a hard time with people thinking that if they're fiancee died and was told they could fix it, that they would say no I better not.

johnny fogg

01-30-2006, 02:44 PM

Well, perhaps....

Jor-El shouldn't be all-powerful though. He can cheat death and reverse time now?

Ketchup

01-30-2006, 02:48 PM

Let me explain in very simple terms to you guys why that wasn't "the stupidest line to ever come out of Martha's mouth."

Clark is the future Superman. As such, and due to his family, his has some of the best morals I have ever encountered.

With that said, he loves his father, and he loves his girlfriend enough to propose to her - in other words he loves her as he'd love his wife. You can argue all you want that Lana doesn't deserve his love, but the fact remains that he DOES love her, even if in ur eyes he shouldnt.

If you had a choice between letting a stranger die and letting your father die, yes you'd choose to save your father, but you'd still feel like crap for not being able to save both of them.

If you had a choice between letting your future wife and your father die, you'd never make the choice, unless you are a heartless b*****d.

You can not like Lana all you want, but don't go posting BS unless you've considered all points of your arguement. For once, try to see this from the viewpoint of the actual characters of the show, instead of your own biased point of view.

No-El

01-30-2006, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by johnny fogg
Ok, he was a lunkhead.

I like the sound of that. Big dumb lunkhead.

Lunkhead, well he is insecure when i comes to wanting Lana and she is/was his "Security Blanket" so like Peanuts Linus all he needs now is for someone to teach him how to "Suck-his-Thumb"!

KRAM-el

01-30-2006, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Ketchup

If you had a choice between letting your future wife and your father die, you'd never make the choice, unless you are a heartless b*****d.

I guess I'm a heartless b*****d. Because I'd have chosen my father. :mad: Better a heartless b*****d than a selfish one.

All about Clark

01-30-2006, 03:00 PM

No-El, how is loving and wanting to spend your life with a woman mean you are insecure and need to suck your thumb, please...

Great post Ketchup.

No-El

01-30-2006, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by All about Clark
No-El, how is loving and wanting to spend your life with a woman mean you are insecure and need to suck your thumb, please...

Great post Ketchup.

I'll tell ya, Clark was intent on saving her as he expressed it to Jor-El in the FOS!

That is all he could think about, even his reaction to his lose at the accident scene as JK tried to hold Super Clark back shows he did not want to lose her then or earlier when to told Lana:

".....I know the way you look at me, that I'm losing you...." (Lana looks away from Clark's gaze before he takes her to the FOS via the CAVE)

The loft scene dialog of Clark is clear indication he is insecure over Lex's influence of losing her and it is a females right and choice to decide between who she ultimately want to go/be with.

We males, have to buckle under and accept it, Insecure or not!

Smallvillian

01-30-2006, 03:16 PM

People are also forgetting that Lana and Jonathan were both alive in Lex's vision.

If Lex had dropped out of the race, he would not have been drunk that night.

You could argue a lot from that vsion as to who was responsible for who's death (Clark or Lex), but my point is that Jonathan was not at death's door because of his condition. He was still lookin' dandy nearly 8 years later.

smallvillefan26

02-01-2006, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Smallvillian
People are also forgetting that Lana and Jonathan were both alive in Lex's vision.

If Lex had dropped out of the race, he would not have been drunk that night.

You could argue a lot from that vsion as to who was responsible for who's death (Clark or Lex), but my point is that Jonathan was not at death's door because of his condition. He was still lookin' dandy nearly 8 years later. Yes, if Lex had dropped out, Martha would not have accepted money from Lionel and therefore, the confrontation between the two would not have happened. JK would have not have had a heart attack (at least not at that point) because he didn't meet Lionel. I'm not saying that something else may have caused JK to have a heart attack, but the stress of meeting Lionel would not have played a part since it never happened. And if we take Lexmas as a true alternate reality, we could say (in an extreme sense) that Lex dropping out of the race prevented JK's death. However, I think that reality was made null and void when Lex decided to stay in the race, prompting the acceptance of money and JK's confrontation with Lionel.

I still think that Clark plays a part in JK's death (unintentionally). The heart attack would never have been an issue had JK not had to make a deal with Jor-El to get Clark back from Metropolis. The events that caused JK's death were set in place long before Arrival, Hidden, Lexmas and Reckoning, but they impacted how it happened, IMO.

Sorry if this is confusing!

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 09:25 AM

the true clark kent/superman would take his own life before knowingly sacrificing another. he also would never lie but the writers of this show did away with that one in a hurry.

rocky_841

02-01-2006, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Ketchup

With that said, he loves his father, and he loves his girlfriend enough to propose to her - in other words he loves her as he'd love his wife. You can argue all you want that Lana doesn't deserve his love, but the fact remains that he DOES love her, even if in ur eyes he shouldnt.

If you had a choice between letting a stranger die and letting your father die, yes you'd choose to save your father, but you'd still feel like crap for not being able to save both of them.

If you had a choice between letting your future wife and your father die, you'd never make the choice, unless you are a heartless b*****d.

You can not like Lana all you want, but don't go posting BS unless you've considered all points of your arguement. For once, try to see this from the viewpoint of the actual characters of the show, instead of your own biased point of view.

Hey i think everyone agrees that you wouldnt be able to make a choice. the thread is about who would/should clark choose if he were FORCED to choose. for example, who he would choose if he were told unless he didnt make a choice, both would die. i think in this case he would choose one of the two, dont you? better to have one one them dead than both of them. so stop posting he cant choose. and of course no one is denying that he would and should feel like crap for not being able to save everyone, that staement is obvious and is therefore irrelevant here.

if you had a choice between letting your future wife (who hasnt proven herself to deserve your love but u love her anyway out of DESIRE) and your father (who has laid down his life for you time and time again, and wud basically die for u any day, and has proved it many times), and were told u HAVE to choose one or they both die, AND had no way of saving both, the SELFISH thing to do would be to choose to save the future wife, because watever she has or hasnt done for you isnt important to you, you just want her to fulfil your desire, your wants, your needs. YOU need her more for the future than you need your father. so in this case, your own personal wants are affecting your choice and not your sense of judgement. However, in this case, the MORAL and SELFLESS thing to do would be to choose to save your father, whom you dont materialistically need, but you owe your life and your personality to. in this case your decision isnt being governed by desire or wants, rather by moral judgement, deserving and selflessness.

now since you are suggesting we consider clarks point of view, here it is. jonathon, he knows what jonathon has done for him, and the extent he would go to for him, and therefore knows jonathon deserves the same from clark and that would be clarks main persuation to try to save him. on the other hand, he also knows lana, wat she has done for him, and how far she would go for him (i.e. tell him to stay away from him at the first sign of trouble, leaves him because he doesnt wanna tell her his personal stuff? she comes nowhere close to jonathon), he knows wat she deserves from him and thats really not much, but he still wants to be with her, why? because he is in love with her. and thats clarks main persuation to try to save her. desire (a very selfish attribute i might add). so apparently if he is anywhere near the moral and selfless person he is supposed to be, he should be able to stop thinking about his own needs for once, and pick jonathon over lana any day, only IF HE HAD TO of course. and obviously heartlessness has nothing to do with this situation because he is being FORCED to choose. remember? of course he would prefer to save both. its a simple choice between selfishness and deservation/gratitude. choice between a selfish version of love aka desire versus earned love.

this is why for martha to say clark couldnt choose between lana and jonathon if he had to, is to imply that lana and jonathon are equally important to clark, which in turn suggests tremendous selfishness on clarks part.

hope i could get my point across.

KRAM-el

02-01-2006, 11:18 AM

[i]its a simple choice between selfishness and deservation/gratitude. choice between a selfish version of love aka desire versus earned love.[/B]

MAGNIFICENTLY laid out. I couldn't add a thing to that no matter HOW hard I tried... Yes, you got your point across (albeit I agreed w/ you from the start)... Brilliantly. :)

* throws up hand & gives a high-five *

Mydhrin

02-01-2006, 11:28 AM

Wow...

I never knew love was selfish... I also didnt know that even though Clark loves both Lana and his father in a different way, one of them is more moral then the other...

WTH ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT! Love is no moral thing, its a feeling! A feeling isnt moral or logical! Its something that we cant control, something we cant describe, something we know is there and is powerful inside of us! To say that Clark should choose to save Jonathan because he owe him this and that, because his love is more moral selfless then his feelings for Lana is, sorry if i offend you guys, completly ridiculous!

This is the same mythological and ethical problem of saving either your wife or your child. There is no better choice, there is only a choice. Whatever reasons you give for saving one instead of the other will be far from logical, selfishness or not or any other thing.

Come on!

ZeoVGM

02-01-2006, 11:38 AM

The fact is he didn't have the choice. All he knew was that the "balance" would be restored. How was he to know who it would be? And he was in such an emotinoal state of distress, it was impossible for him to think logically about something to make a decision. He did what anyone would do: someone said the person he wanted to spend the rest of his life with could be brought back from the dead as if nothing happened. He jumped at the chance.

Especially, only 5-10 minutes after that person's death. NO ONE would sit back and try to logically think and if you say you would, you are flat out lying. If you actually love that person, you would in no way be in the state of mind 5-10 minutes after touching her dead and bloody body to make logicial decisions. This is a fact.

Another fact? Jonathan was going to die soon anyway. Something just had to trigger it. That's why he was taking the pills. Lionel still would have confronted Jonathan. Maybe even that night, but DEFINITELY soon after if not. Jonathan still would have gotten mad and attacked him.

Then Jonathan AND Lana would be dead.

Not that Clark would know that would happen.

He made the right decision, saving her.

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by ZeoVGM
The fact is he didn't have the choice. All he knew was that the "balance" would be restored. How was he to know who it would be? And he was in such an emotinoal state of distress, it was impossible for him to think logically about something to make a decision. He did what anyone would do: someone said the person he wanted to spend the rest of his life with could be brought back from the dead as if nothing happened. He jumped at the chance.

Especially, only 5-10 minutes after that person's death. NO ONE would sit back and try to logically think and if you say you would, you are flat out lying. If you actually love that person, you would in no way be in the state of mind 5-10 minutes after touching her dead and bloody body to make logicial decisions. This is a fact.

Another fact? Jonathan was going to die soon anyway. Something just had to trigger it. That's why he was taking the pills. Lionel still would have confronted Jonathan. Maybe even that night, but DEFINITELY soon after if not. Jonathan still would have gotten mad and attacked him.

Then Jonathan AND Lana would be dead.

Not that Clark would know that would happen.

He made the right decision, saving her.

He could have killed himself instead of making that choice. And no, the show wouldn't end since everyone here cares more about Lex anyways :mad:

rocky_841

02-01-2006, 12:24 PM

first of all ZeoVGM, we are not talking about wat ACTUALLY happened in the show and who clark ACTUALLY chose on the show or whether he ACTUALLY did right or not. the topic is about Martha's statement where she implies the survival of jonathon and lana is supposedly equally important to clark, and judging its validity/absurdity, and using a hypothetical situation fabricated around that statement to do so. the topic is SOLELY about what martha said, and nothing more. so the actual happenings of the episode is not relevant here.

now to Mydhrin, so you are saying the biological love between a guy and a gal is not selfish because its a "feeling"? lets talk about this feeling. its biological, and its human nature to be attracted towards the opposite sex, and that is where it originates from. but so is hunger!! wat do i need to satisfy my hunger? i need food. wat do i need to get food? i need money. and thats one of the reasons ppl want money. the tendency to want money is also generated from biological feelings, just like desire. yet we call the greed for money selfish. why? because it satisfies ones needs. thats why. thats how u define selfish. but that does not necessarily mean wanting money is a bad thing. similarly the love that originates from sex appeal between a guy and a gal is indeed selfish because it is there to satisfy their needs, be it physical, or emotional or watever. but just like wanting money, its not a bad thing. however, a selfless person is a person who puts his duty before his own personal, biological (this includes the feeling you were talking about), materialistic needs, should these needs ever clash with his duty, and one who can do that is considered to be moral.

clarks love for his father is certainly more moral than his love for lana, because his love for his father came from his sense of duty, as opposed to his love for lana which originated from his own needs (call this need a "feeling" if you want, but every selfish act to ever take place on the earth is a response to a biological feeling. i.e. hunger, protection, comfort, etc. so how is this any different?)

smallvillefan26

02-01-2006, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by rocky_841
this is why for martha to say clark couldnt choose between lana and jonathon if he had to, is to imply that lana and jonathon are equally important to clark, which in turn suggests tremendous selfishness on clarks part. I can't understand why this suggests that Clark is being selfish. Because he loves Lana? Even if you don't like her, Clark loves her. Love is a feeling, an emotion, an opinion if you will, and it's impossible to tell someone that loving a certain person is selfish. The only way Clark would have seemed selfish to me is if he had said flat out he would have chosen Lana over his father. We all know that wouldn't have happened. This is why his mother says what she does.

Originally posted by Mydhrin
Wow...

I never knew love was selfish... I also didnt know that even though Clark loves both Lana and his father in a different way, one of them is more moral then the other...

WTH ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT! Love is no moral thing, its a feeling! A feeling isnt moral or logical! Its something that we cant control, something we cant describe, something we know is there and is powerful inside of us! To say that Clark should choose to save Jonathan because he owe him this and that, because his love is more moral selfless then his feelings for Lana is, sorry if i offend you guys, completly ridiculous!

This is the same mythological and ethical problem of saving either your wife or your child. There is no better choice, there is only a choice. Whatever reasons you give for saving one instead of the other will be far from logical, selfishness or not or any other thing.

Come on! Agreed!

KRAM-el

02-01-2006, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by ZeoVGM
Especially, only 5-10 minutes after that person's death. NO ONE would sit back and try to logically think and if you say you would, you are flat out lying. If you actually love that person, you would in no way be in the state of mind 5-10 minutes after touching her dead and bloody body to make logicial decisions.

This is a fact.

He made the right decision, saving her.

As to statement 1 - How do YOU know how long he had to think about it? Jor-El TOLD him to "think"... and he grabbed the crystal immediately -- on impulse! Sit down & ponder the consequences, Clark!!! Geez Louise! Are all YOUR decisions this impulsive???

Statement 2 - I'm glad you find it all so "absolute". Jor-El's accused of 'playing God'... What about you (no personal offense)?

Statement 3 - And you know the future, too? What if Lana became the harbinger of WWIII (through Lex)?? What if Jonathan had become a great and forthright politician (yeah, I know, there IS no such thing)?

You defend your logic, I'll defend mine. Never the twain shall meet.

smallvillefan26

02-01-2006, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by rocky_841
now to Mydhrin, so you are saying the biological love between a guy and a gal is not selfish because its a "feeling"? lets talk about this feeling. its biological, and its human nature to be attracted towards the opposite sex, and that is where it originates from. but so is hunger!! wat do i need to satisfy my hunger? i need food. wat do i need to get food? i need money. and thats one of the reasons ppl want money. the tendency to want money is also generated from biological feelings, just like desire. yet we call the greed for money selfish. why? because it satisfies ones needs. thats why. thats how u define selfish. but that does not necessarily mean wanting money is a bad thing. similarly the love that originates from sex appeal between a guy and a gal is indeed selfish because it is there to satisfy their needs, be it physical, or emotional or watever. but just like wanting money, its not a bad thing. however, a selfless person is a person who puts his duty before his own personal, biological (this includes the feeling you were talking about), materialistic needs, should these needs ever clash with his duty, and one who can do that is considered to be moral.

clarks love for his father is certainly more moral than his love for lana, because his love for his father came from his sense of duty, as opposed to his love for lana which originated from his own needs (call this need a "feeling" if you want, but every selfish act to ever take place on the earth is a response to a biological feeling. i.e. hunger, protection, comfort, etc. so how is this any different?) There are three biological needs, i.e. those things needed to survive: food, oxygen and water. Everything else is defined as a want. So, going by your reasoning, if Clark had in fact knowingly chosen his father over Lana, we could call this act selfish just the same as you are saying Clark would be selfish if he chose Lana over his father. Clark doesn't "need" his father's presence no more than he "needs" Lana's presence.

It seems to me that calling Clark's love for his father more "moral" than his love for Lana stems from the fact that Clark has sex with Lana. What if Clark had to choose between his mother and father? Where, in your eyes, each love is equally "moral?" He wouldn't be able to choose and the simple fact is it doesn't matter who Clark would have to choose between. He loves them all for different reasons and that is a feeling.

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by angelus666
When you Think about it Clark probably would have chosen Lana because 1.) Jonathan's time would have already been very limited because of his heart condition. 2.) The fact that Jonathan has already lived a long life compared to Lana who is 18/19. 3.) Clark loved Lana enough to ask her to marry him and tell her his secret. Don't get me wrong it would have been a hard choice for Clark but if he was to choose one over the other I think he would choose Lana.

1. the heart condition was contracted while saving clark's life.

2. wow, can someone say "logan's run"

3. ?????? (well i guess he couldn't do that with his dad since that would be a little weird)

and to the person who said clark loved lana since they were 7.....

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: (sorry but that was funny)

maybe it's a canadian thing or something :p

Originally posted by ckfan
I think it was a good line.

Martha was trying hard to make sure that Clark did not feel guilt for what happened. It's true that Jonathan has given a lot more to Clark than Lana has, but in Clark's eyes, Lana is the love of his life and someone that he has always protected. So it would be an impossible choice.

Well obviously it wasn't an impossible choice since he made it in 2 seconds flat.

Also, shouldn't have Clark consoled his mother? I believe it was she who lost the love of her life so Lana (who isn't the love of his life as Lois will be) could live. So in hindsight, it was a wee-bit of a bad decision on clark's part.

Originally posted by ZeoVGM
The fact is he didn't have the choice. All he knew was that the "balance" would be restored. How was he to know who it would be? And he was in such an emotinoal state of distress, it was impossible for him to think logically about something to make a decision. He did what anyone would do: someone said the person he wanted to spend the rest of his life with could be brought back from the dead as if nothing happened. He jumped at the chance.

and what part of "balance" did clark not understand. balance meant one loved one for another. not one loved one for a baby koala in australia.

and clark did not have to make the decision 5 to 10 minutes after the accident as jor-el told him to think about it before doing it. the crystal did not have an expiration date.

KRAM-el

02-01-2006, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim

Also, shouldn't have Clark consoled his mother? I believe it was she who lost the love of her life so Lana (who isn't the love of his life as Lois will be) could live. So in hindsight, it was a wee-bit of a bad decision on clark's part.

Another vote for Clark's selfishness, to put ANY of his other loved ones at risk... if it had been the other way around, it still would have been the same...

Now look at Lana... What faithful family does SHE have? Her Aunt kinda packed up & left town to go shack-up w/ some guy... (great way to write HER out)...
Her parents are dead... yes, DEAD.
Her biological father (Henry Small) doesn't seem to quantify her existence either (yeah, yeah... he was a means to an end to give Lana some validity and drama -- Oh, Lana, the DRAMA of it all!)... but he's somehow dropped down into one of those "plot holes" never to be heard from again...
She and Chloe are supposed to be 'surrogate sisters' (remember "that" story line? - the writers don't)...

Need I go on???

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by ZeoVGM
T

Another fact? Jonathan was going to die soon anyway. Something just had to trigger it. That's why he was taking the pills. Lionel still would have confronted Jonathan. Maybe even that night, but DEFINITELY soon after if not. Jonathan still would have gotten mad and attacked him.

well, i guess that makes it right. hell, he may have lingered on a few more years but lana's life was definitely worth more.

i mean he was only a senator now compared to a (well what the hell is she?).

i mean she's now going to be lex's newest possession. what happens to her when she finds out some of the nasty (illegal) things he's going to do.

oh wait, he can blackmail her with the mrs. teague killing. so he won't have to kill her (until her conscience finally gets the best of her). until then though... oh joy, life is good. :p

KryptonStones

02-01-2006, 03:26 PM

You see, I never saw Clark as a BDA until now. It's either that, or his love for Lana has blinded his sense of logic IMO. Jor-El warned him about a "balance" that would occur if he saved Lana's life, what the hell did he think was going to happen?

Was he hoping that Jor-El's speech would just go away? I hope to hell not because after all Jor-El has done to him, (Taken away his powers, made him pay several times for disobeying him and not, seemingly, taking into account his warnings.) he should know how Jor-El works. Either the posters who see Clark as a bda have been proven right, or he knew someone was going to die but wanted to save Lana Lang.

What truly breaks my heart is the fact that this isn't even the woman he's going to end up with and yet when it comes to her he seems to disregard the actions or results of others. Idk, I just see it as such. I kinda agree on Zeovgm to an extent though, but what I see it as is a balance. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, Jonathan Kent would've found a way over his heart disease. Maybe Lionel Luthor would've confronted him in a different way. It is fiction so anything's possible....after all they seem to have the ability to go back in time. Maybe Jon's heart failure was just an insurance for Jor-El, so if Clark decided to save Lana's life(which he did.) Jonathan Kent would've died with reasonable, earth-bound, natural causes I assume. I'll tell you this though....all that Clark has done for his girl-friend will be extremely ironic in this mans future.

Watching Smallville

02-01-2006, 04:30 PM

If this thread is about Martha's statement, then I would suggest that her statement is purely meant to console, and nothing futher. It's impossible to know how Martha felt at that moment -- she is so protective of Clark. And I doubt she would ever want Clark to consider seriously trading one life for another -- any life and another life. It just wouldn't be like her. But I remember when Clark came home after Exile, Martha said "We never blamed you," in reference to losing the baby. But in fact, Jonathan did blame Clark for what happened, telling him he didin't think about the consequences of his actions. So that statement, "We never blamed you," was more consiliatory than true. Perhaps Martha didn't blame Clark, be we don't know. Sometimes she dishes out the tough love, as with Alicia, and sometimes she makes a point to be kind. I think this was one of those times she felt is was important to be kind.

KRAM-el

02-01-2006, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
If this thread is about Martha's statement, then I would suggest that her statement is purely meant to console, and nothing futher. It's impossible to know how Martha felt at that moment -- she is so protective of Clark. And I doubt she would ever want Clark to consider seriously making a choice between one life and another -- any life and another life. But I remember when Clark came home after Exile, Martha said "We never blamed you," in reference to losing the baby. But in fact, Jonathan did blame Clark for what happened, telling him he didin't think about the consequences of his actions. So that statement, "We never blamed you," was more consiliatory than true. Perhaps Martha didn't blame Clark, be we don't know. Sometimes she dishes out the tough love, as with Alicia, and sometimes she makes a point to be kind. I think this was one of those times she felt is was important to be kind.

The ebb-and-flow of the emotions & characterizations on the show is enough to make anyone sea-sick... :\

Watching Smallville

02-01-2006, 04:36 PM

Well, I guess my point is, sometimes people say things to make other people feel better. And there's not a whole lot more to it than that.

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
Well, I guess my point is, sometimes people say things to make other people feel better. And there's not a whole lot more to it than that.

100% agree with you on that point. However, for this instance, I wish the writers would have done more.

Clark didn't have to make a snap decision. Jor-el did tell him to think before using the crystal (it didn't have an expiration date).

The writers should have had him go to his parents and tell them the whole story and have him say how he can't make the decision. JK would have told him to sleep on it and they would talk about it in the morning. Then during the night, jk being the man he is, would go to the FOS and plead with Jor_el to take his life for Lana's (because jk would not make his son choose).

Now for Martha's reaction. I would have expected at least a "how could you make such a decision without talking to us". I mean it's ok to show her upset that the love of her life was taken from her without at least a say in the matter.

Clark should have been the one to console his mother in this ep. AT least show some glimpse of becoming a man.

KRAM-el

02-01-2006, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
Well, I guess my point is, sometimes people say things to make other people feel better. And there's not a whole lot more to it than that.

I can accept that. It's hollow, but unfortunately it's true. And to think... it could have been all avoided if he had just gone back to the FOS before sundown. %#$*&!@ Pinkie !!! ;) :p ;)

KRAM-el

02-01-2006, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
I would have expected at least a "how could you make such a decision without talking to us". AT least show some glimpse of becoming a man.
BINGO. She HAS said things like that to him in the past... BDA? I rest my case. :mad:

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by KRAM-el
I can accept that. It's hollow, but unfortunately it's true. And to think... it could have been all avoided if he had just gone back to the FOS before sundown. %#$*&!@ Pinkie !!! ;) :p ;)

he could have grabbed a rufie from lex (he must have a few) and given it to lana and then run to the FOS with her. she wouldn't have remembered a thing.

or ask jor-el if he could wipe her mind.

oh wait, why am i even bothering....:mad:

Watching Smallville

02-01-2006, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by KRAM-el
I can accept that. It's hollow, but unfortunately it's true. And to think... it could have been all avoided if he had just gone back to the FOS before sundown. %#$*&!@ Pinkie !!! ;) :p ;)
That's the real problem. He gave his word. He said, "You have my word." And then, when he didn't make it back, he just dropped the whole issue. I wonder if he could have made it back if he had tried? You'd think he would have at least made the effort.

But that's another thread. :cool:

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by KRAM-el
BINGO. She HAS said things like that to him in the past... BDA? I rest my case. :mad:

D'Oh! :\

KRAM-el

02-01-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
You'd think he would have at least made the effort.

And that, as an audience, is all we ask. Case closed.

Watching Smallville

02-01-2006, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
I would have expected at least a "how could you make such a decision without talking to us". I mean it's ok to show her upset that the love of her life was taken from her without at least a say in the matter.
That's kindness at work. I don't think Martha's going to rebuke him at all at this point. What's done is done, and it's so tragic, the lesson is so bare, there's no need to rub it in.

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
That's kindness at work. I don't think Martha's going to rebuke him at all at this point. What's done is done, and it's so tragic, the lesson is so bare, there's no need to rub it in.

unfortunately it appears clark has not learned from his previous lessons. maybe she should have said: "Clark, you killed the love of my life you a**hole!" Maybe that might finally sink into the extremely thick skull the writers have given him.

Watching Smallville

02-01-2006, 05:06 PM

:lol:

KRAM-el

02-01-2006, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
unfortunately it appears clark has not learned from his previous lessons. maybe she should have said: "Clark, you killed the love of my life you a**hole!" Maybe that might finally sink into the extremely thick skull the writers have given him.

Only if she pierced it w/ a K-nite funnel & poured it in... & maybe not even then... :rolleyes:

bkzcici

02-01-2006, 05:54 PM

I disagree 101% x infinity! This line was beautifully said. Instead of thinking who Clark would've.. should've chose.. realistically, you can never choose over the people you love. Clark doesnt love one more than the other, he loves them, period. Can any of you choose between the person u love and ur parents? You can't. Fate has its way to choose. Obviously, Clark can't save Jonathon everytime he has a heart attack. Lana's not destined to die, and Clark knows that!

KRAM-el

02-01-2006, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by bkzcici
Lana's not destined to die, and Clark knows that!
This is going 'round & 'round in circles. If it makes you feel better, have it your way... :( :rolleyes: :(

SmallvilleMan

02-01-2006, 06:07 PM

I thought the line was well said. That wouldn't have been easy choice for clark to make. The girl you love, you're future wife or your dad. To say that's an easy choice, is wrong imo and doesn't take into account anything about clark. Obviously he could have never made a choice, he should just keep trying to choose himself

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by bkzcici
I disagree 101% x infinity! This line was beautifully said. Instead of thinking who Clark would've.. should've chose.. realistically, you can never choose over the people you love. Clark doesnt love one more than the other, he loves them, period. Can any of you choose between the person u love and ur parents? You can't. Fate has its way to choose. Obviously, Clark can't save Jonathon everytime he has a heart attack. Lana's not destined to die, and Clark knows that!

but clark did choose...he chose anybody but lana!

SmallvilleMan

02-01-2006, 06:14 PM

but clark did choose...he chose anybody but lana!

He wasn't going to let her die and i'd bet the bank anyone in his position would have done the same.

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
He wasn't going to let her die and i'd bet the bank anyone in his position would have done the same.

well it contradicts what you said you disagreed 101% to infinity on. You said clark would never choosebetween loved ones and yet he did.

SmallvilleMan

02-01-2006, 06:44 PM

well it contradicts what you said you disagreed 101% to infinity on. You said clark would never choosebetween loved ones and yet he did.

How it does it contradict what I said? I never said about 101% inifinity. I said could never choose between the ones he loved and he didn't. He didn't know Jk was going to die.

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
How it does it contradict what I said? I never said about 101% inifinity. I said could never choose between the ones he loved and he didn't. He didn't know Jk was going to die.

he KNEW a loved one HAD to die for him to get his powers back.

Lana was chosen to repay this debt but clark said "NO WAY JOSE"! and chose to have another loved one take her place.

having lana die then using a crystal to bring her back was not a cute way of settling the debt to the universe he owed.

SmallvilleMan

02-01-2006, 07:01 PM

he KNEW a loved one HAD to die for him to get his powers back.
Except he thought he could stop it.

Lana was chosen to repay this debt but clark said "NO WAY JOSE"! and chose to have another loved one take her place.

No he didn't, because he thought he could save Lana and nothing would happen. That just makes him naive.

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
Except he thought he could stop it.

How?

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan

No he didn't, because he thought he could save Lana and nothing would happen. That just makes him naive.

How did you come up with that? He knew Lana dying was the payment he owed. Bringing her back meant someone else had to go. He's known that from the beginning of the season (well since he got his powers back).

Plus Jor-el told him so. I mean did you think the balance Jor-el talked about was a chihuahua from Mexico in exhange for Lana?

Clark may have been naive but he knows simple math:

powers restored means one loved one had to go.

lana dead= loved one lost.

restoring lana = one loved one needed to take her place

clark knew this and chose to save lana anyway.

SmallvilleMan

02-01-2006, 07:32 PM

How did you come up with that? He knew Lana dying was the payment he owed. Bringing her back meant someone else had to go. He's known that from the beginning of the season (well since he got his powers back).

Except he doesn't believe that he can't stop it. Clark does not accept the fact that someone is going to die and he can't do anything about it.

Plus Jor-el told him so. I mean did you think the balance Jor-el talked about was a chihuahua from Mexico in exhange for Lana?

You're just not seeing that the fact that it doesnt matter what Jor-el says to Clark. Clark is going to do and believe what he thinks. Which meant saving lana and preventing the person he loved from dying.

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
Except he doesn't believe that he can't stop it. Clark does not accept the fact that someone is going to die and he can't do anything about it.

he's had to deal with that several times in the show already.

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan

You're just not seeing that the fact that it doesnt matter what Jor-el says to Clark. Clark is going to do and believe what he thinks. Which meant saving lana and preventing the person he loved from dying.

You're just not seeing that everything jor-el has said, has come to pass.

myownwoman

02-01-2006, 07:46 PM

I just think it's really disappointing that his father died instead of Lana. Now, Clana fans would disagree, but see it from a father-son POV. A father means the world to a son, a father has nourished the son, a father has loved the son with so much love, a father is a parent to a son.

JK's passing is more tragic than say if Lana was the one who died.

That's why this episode was so emotional.

Think about it, if Lana died would it have provoked the same kinds/types of emotions than JK?

jaime,oburg

02-01-2006, 08:01 PM

Martha 's words were meant to help her son not feel the guilt of how the events played out. But to answer her question myself. IMHO If Clark had to choose, I am afraid that he would indeed chose Lana over his own father who found and raised him. The Lana blinders Clark wears unfortunetly does influence ( too many times negatively) the decisons in his life. I am not blaming Lana for all the poor decisions Clark has made in his young life (before I am accused of bashing Lana). He did not think anything through, as someone posted before, it didn't matter who else may have to die at that moment in the FOS, he couldn't see beyond making sure it wasn't Lana. He loves her and is blinded by that love too many times when making important decisions. No, Clark is not a murder or is at direct fault for his father's death. But his Lana blinders influence his decisions too much. When he chooses to make his own decisions he needs to consider other things besides his love for Lana.:)

superfreak80

02-01-2006, 08:30 PM

Did I miss something? Did CK tell MK what happened in the FOS? I just took her comment as one of a mother who feels that her son is feeling guilty for not getting to his father in time. Unless I am mistaken (and I very well could be), she was saying this in the same manner JK was when he was holding Clark back from Lana's mangled body, "there's nothing you could do"....that's how I interpreted it....but, I may be wrong.

No-El

02-01-2006, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by jaime,oburg
Martha 's words were meant to help her son not feel the guilt of how the events played out. But to answer her question myself. IMHO If Clark had to choose, I am afraid that he would indeed chose Lana over his own father who found and raised him. The Lana blinders Clark wears unfortunetly does influence ( too many times negatively) the decisons in his life. I am not blaming Lana for all the poor decisions Clark has made in his young life (before I am accused of bashing Lana). He did not think anything through, as someone posted before, it didn't matter who else may have to die at that moment in the FOS, he couldn't see beyond making sure it wasn't Lana. He loves her and is blinded by that love too many times when making important decisions. No, Clark is not a murder or is at direct fault for his father's death. But his Lana blinders influence his decisions too much. When he chooses to make his own decisions he needs to consider other things besides his love for Lana.:)

All true, which explains why Jor-El knew of the Lana Factor and saw that either way Clark would respond to both situations in time, Lana would still be the deciding Factor/common denominator in Clark's reasoning!

Jor-El knew this and it was the lesson that Jor-El had to teach is son Kal-El:

*Either save Lana, and Fate will seek out your biological father

OR

*Do not save Lana, thus granting Fate the "FIRST KILL"!

Either way it was "the lessons Clark learned from pain that will make him the strongest"!

Either DEATH for Clark is painful in his young eyes to endure!

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 09:00 PM

ok, so far this week i've had to both defend clark from those that call him a cold-blooded killer and try to convince people he wasn't completely oblivious to the fact that somebody had to die in place of lana.

the only thing i have left to say is: "You SV writers really suck!" i shouldn't have to work this hard defending clark kent! :p

and "IT WAS A FREAKING JUMP" and "LEAP" = "JUMP". when you jump, you are temporarily defying gravity. ok, wrong forum but i feel very strongly about this and people just don't get the ball = clark analogy :mad:

thank god tomorrow is ep. 101 so we can have something else to debate!

SmallvilleMan

02-01-2006, 09:31 PM

You're just not seeing that everything jor-el has said, has come to pass.

I'm not the one that has to see it, Clark is. No?

Martha 's words were meant to help her son not feel the guilt of how the events played out. But to answer her question myself. IMHO If Clark had to choose, I am afraid that he would indeed chose Lana over his own father who found and raised him. The Lana blinders Clark wears unfortunetly does influence ( too many times negatively) the decisons in his life. I am not blaming Lana for all the poor decisions Clark has made in his young life (before I am accused of bashing Lana). He did not think anything through, as someone posted before, it didn't matter who else may have to die at that moment in the FOS, he couldn't see beyond making sure it wasn't Lana. He loves her and is blinded by that love too many times when making important decisions. No, Clark is not a murder or is at direct fault for his father's death. But his Lana blinders influence his decisions too much. When he chooses to make his own decisions he needs to consider other things besides his love for Lana.

He would never choose one over the other, but how could you blame him for choosing Lana if he did? This is the girl who's 18 years old and he could be with the rest of life, not to mention he loves her very much. JK is a man who was on his last gasps. You're telling me you're going to take a young healthy girl for a guy who's going to die soon anyways? Off course his Lana blinders influence him as they would ANYBODY. If you love someone that much, you're going to sacrifice everything for them and i know you didn't say it, but saying Clark is a murderer is just wrong in so many ways.

KRAM-el

02-01-2006, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
i know you didn't say it, but saying Clark is a murderer is just wrong in so many ways.
Firstly, age or health should have no bearing on his decision. He knows not what the future holds... Lana could've developed some fatal disease & be dying & Clark would lose her anyway, balance of nature or not. Secondly, just the POSSIBILITY that the death was Clark's responsibility, murder or involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide or whatever, should give you a glimpse into the sick minds of this writing staff. They can't seem to find anything 'heroic' in their hero w/ both hands & a flashlight (OK, it's their behinds, but the analogy is the same). Is this the kind of Clark Kent you want to give your undying support to? If so, then I'm on the side of Darth Vader.

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
I'm not the one that has to see it, Clark is. No?

ok, i see semantics have entered the scene.

jor-el's predictions have all come true. if they were all true up to the point where he gave clark the crystal, why would clark doubt him then?

basically you are calling clark either, stupid, or non-caring. both viewpoints are unacceptable in my eyes, which is why i am angry with the writers (not with you).

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan

He would never choose one over the other, but how could you blame him for choosing Lana if he did? This is the girl who's 18 years old and he could be with the rest of life, not to mention he loves her very much. JK is a man who was on his last gasps. You're telling me you're going to take a young healthy girl for a guy who's going to die soon anyways? Off course his Lana blinders influence him as they would ANYBODY. If you love someone that much, you're going to sacrifice everything for them and i know you didn't say it, but saying Clark is a murderer is just wrong in so many ways.

dude, please re-read that and think about what you are implying. you are implying that just because someone is older and has a health problem, their life is less important than a young person's.

jk could have lived a day, or a couple years. it wasn't clark's place to judge his importance on the planet earth.

the writer's screwed up big time, because they wrote clark into a no-win corner. the true clark would have chosen to take his own life and definitely not his girlfriend over his father (or vice versa).

SmallvilleMan

02-01-2006, 09:56 PM

Firstly, age or health should have no bearing on his decision. He knows not what the future holds... Lana could've developed some fatal disease & be dying & Clark would lose her anyway, balance of nature or not. Secondly, just the POSSIBILITY that the death was Clark's responsibility, murder or involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide or whatever, should give you a glimpse into the sick minds of this writing staff. They can't seem to find anything 'heroic' in their hero w/ both hands & a flashlight (OK, it's their behinds, but the analogy is the same). Is this the kind of Clark Kent you want to give your undying support to? If so, then I'm on the side of Darth Vader.

Oh brother.....:rolleyes: If you want to dub Clark the villan of the story, go ahead. I guarantee everyone in this whole thread would have done exactly what he did. Unless you're going to sit here and tell me you would let the love of your life die.

basically you are calling clark either, stupid, or non-caring. both viewpoints are unacceptable in my eyes, which is why i am angry with the writers (not with you).

Actually, I called him naive and even that is harsh. When you have the love of your life's blood on your hands, your mind isn't exactly in the right place.

dude, please re-read that and think about what you are implying. you are implying that just because someone is older and has a health problem, their life is less important than a young person's.

That's not what I said. What I said, is that everything being equal and having to take a choice you save the young person. I'm not saying JK's life is less important than Lana's. I'm saying Lana is younger and has her whole life ahead, at least JK had lived a life.

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
Oh brother.....:rolleyes: If you want to dub Clark the villan of the story, go ahead. I guarantee everyone in this whole thread would have done exactly what he did. Unless you're going to sit here and tell me you would let the love of your life die.

Personally I would have ended my own life before making that choice as I don't have the right to make that choice.

I would have written the story so that Clark uses the extraordinary brain he's suppose to have and at least seek counsel on the decision (again, crystal had no expiration date).

JK would have made the decision for him as that's what JK would have done.

Then you could have the strain of Clark seeing Lana and knowing he lost his father to keep her and then go from there.

Or you could have had defiant clark go to the fos with a big ole piece of kryptonite and tell jor-el, "find another way or the aquaman pilot will air earlier than scheduled!" (that would have been true clark kent)

KRAM-el

02-01-2006, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
Oh brother.....:rolleyes: If you want to dub Clark the villan of the story, go ahead. I guarantee everyone in this whole thread would have done exactly what he did. Unless you're going to sit here and tell me you would let the love of your life die.

You completely misconstrued my point... I blamed the WRITERS -- NOT Clark. But all things being equal I would have chosen my Dad. We're ALL different.

[/i]

Actually, I called him naive and even that is harsh. When you have the love of your life's blood on your hands, your mind isn't exactly in the right place.

Clark's NEVER is... again, see above for cause.

[/i]

That's not what I said. What I said, is that everything being equal and having to take a choice you save the young person. I'm not saying JK's life is less important than Lana's. I'm saying Lana is younger and has her whole life ahead, at least JK had lived a life.

So that's how you rationalize it? And WHO's being heartless?

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
That's not what I said. What I said, is that everything being equal and having to take a choice you save the young person. I'm not saying JK's life is less important than Lana's. I'm saying Lana is younger and has her whole life ahead, at least JK had lived a life.

why automatically save the young person. you would have no idea lana would grow up and contribute anything to society. especially if they are hooking her up with lex, but even if they don't, you can't say she would make an impact half the size as jk could in whatever few years he had left.

not to mention, jk and martha sacrificed alot so they could keep clark's life "off the radar". that should be worth at least a few minutes of thought on clark's part.

KRAM-el

02-01-2006, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
why automatically save the young person. you would have no idea lana would grow up and contribute anything to society.
Remember too, that JK was in his 40's, here. Once you reach that level in life (& I'm 43), you have your life pretty-well established as to where it's going. An 18 year-old is STILL developing -- they MAY become the next quantum physicist, but they could just as easily become the next Jeffrey Daumer... Females are no different than males, the same analogy applies. So saving Lana JUST because she is "young & has her whole life ahead of her" is a fallacy. Not that this bedeviled version of Clark would have chosen any differently, but that should not be his, or anyone else's, reasoning behind it. That implies cruelty, & Clark should be above all of that -- but factors such as this seem to bear little weight in the makeup of this (for far too long) BDA. He IS impulsive, which Superman will be too (he'll need to make his decisions fast)... difference is, Superman can balance impulse w/ wisdom, Clark Kent as we know him rejects wisdom. And wisdom, should he ever seek it, is what will make him SUPER.

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by KRAM-el
Clark Kent as we know him rejects wisdom. And wisdom, should he ever seek it, is what will make him SUPER.

How true. It just seems after ryan and alicia, he should have already realized he can't save everyone.

But alas, I'm preaching to the choir on this point.

happycamper

02-02-2006, 07:33 AM

I disagree with most of what's been stated in this thread. In the case of a rational choice:

A child chooses his parents.

A man chooses his spouse and children. This is what you promise when you get married (that Lana is his fiance at this point is proof of intent), and this is also the biological necessity.

But all this ignores the fact that Clark wasn't in a state to choose. He could only fix the current tragedy, and try later to fix whatever might come up.

And in any case, Clark has been fighting his imposed "destiny" throughout the course of the show. He will not accept Jor-El's commands as being the ultimate truth and/or aan absolute necessity, and has resisted, as well he should.

What others imply as your inevitable fate *should* be fought. It is a form of test, and no one should cravenly give in to the dictates of others when to do so violates and destroys your own deeply held beliefs and relationships.

He fought and lost (in part), which doesn't mean he should never have made the effort.

SmallvilleMan

02-02-2006, 07:45 AM

Personally I would have ended my own life before making that choice as I don't have the right to make that choice.

He tried too, remember?

Clark's NEVER is... again, see above for cause.

Clark's never naive? Really?

So that's how you rationalize it? And WHO's being heartless?

Give me a break, we're talking about FICTIONAL CHARACTERS and i'm heartless, because i'm going to save a young person over an old person if I HAD to make a choice. Puh-lease....

why automatically save the young person. you would have no idea lana would grow up and contribute anything to society. especially if they are hooking her up with lex, but even if they don't, you can't say she would make an impact half the size as jk could in whatever few years he had left.

Oh, so because we don't know she contributes anything to society she should die? Doesn't matter if she does or not, that doesn't justify living or dying.

Remember too, that JK was in his 40's, here. Once you reach that level in life (& I'm 43), you have your life pretty-well established as to where it's going. An 18 year-old is STILL developing -- they MAY become the next quantum physicist, but they could just as easily become the next Jeffrey Daumer... Females are no different than males, the same analogy applies. So saving Lana JUST because she is "young & has her whole life ahead of her" is a fallacy. Not that this bedeviled version of Clark would have chosen any differently, but that should not be his, or anyone else's, reasoning behind it. That implies cruelty, & Clark should be above all of that -- but factors such as this seem to bear little weight in the makeup of this (for far too long) BDA. He IS impulsive, which Superman will be too (he'll need to make his decisions fast)... difference is, Superman can balance impulse w/ wisdom, Clark Kent as we know him rejects wisdom. And wisdom, should he ever seek it, is what will make him SUPER

It's not a fallacy at all, she does have her whole life ahead. Oh please, cruelty? You act that this a blantley choice, where there's so many options here. There's a choice, between someone who is VERY CLEARLY on their way to dying and another who is CLEARLY NOT. That's great, why don't we pick the 18 year old to die. Then in say, a year or heck, even a couple days, we can watch JK die of a heart attack. Now we can waste two lives. But hey, we could always flip a coin and pick straws.:rolleyes:

Timester

02-02-2006, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by happycamper
But all this ignores the fact that Clark wasn't in a state to choose. He could only fix the current tragedy, and try later to fix whatever might come up.

That isn't Clark Kent. He dealt with the same thing in the comics. Or he would kill Joker to save Lois or he would let Lois die. He choose the later. He is responsible for his choices. Jor-El did told him that Clark had to choice between Lana or someone else, that would be his last trial. Clark became responsible for that someone's death.

SmallvilleMan

02-02-2006, 07:48 AM

That isn't Clark Kent. He dealt with the same thing in the comics. Or he would kill Joker to save Lois or he would let Lois die. He choose the later. He is responsible for his choices. Jor-El did told him that Clark had to choice between Lana or someone else, that would be his last trial. Clark became responsible for that someone's death.

See, this is where we have the advantage of third party perspective. JK was going to die anyways, that meeting with Lionel was going to happen, one way or another. Although, you could say he was responsible for getting JK's heart to that stage.

Timester

02-02-2006, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
Give me a break, we're talking about FICTIONAL CHARACTERS and i'm heartless, because i'm going to save a young person over an old person if I HAD to make a choice. Puh-lease....

I would find a 3rd option or made no choice at all. Like Superman always do... When you get older, you will understand why that's heartless.

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
See, this is where we have the advantage of third party perspective. JK was going to die anyways, that meeting with Lionel was going to happen, one way or another. Although, you could say he was responsible for getting JK's heart to that stage.

No... Because history balanced itself with Lana's life. That was the point of the episode, even Jor-El said.

SmallvilleMan

02-02-2006, 07:56 AM

I would find a 3rd option or made no choice at all. Like Superman always do... When you get older, you will understand why that's heartless.

Don't call me heartless, I don't appreciate that all. I don't call you names, even though I could and you wouldn't like it, one bit. You have no right to call me or anyone else heartless.

No... Because history balanced itself with Lana's life. That was the point of the episode, even Jor-El said.

Oh yeah, so then JK heart problems would have magically healed after that.... Yeah, you're right.....:rolleyes:

Timester

02-02-2006, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
Don't call me heartless, I don't appreciate that all. I don't call you names, even though I could and you wouldn't like it, one bit. You have no right to call me or anyone else heartless.

Who is calling you heartless? I said the fact of the choice is heartless, and it is.

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
Oh yeah, so then JK heart problems would have magically healed after that.... Yeah, you're right.....:rolleyes:

Like Jonathan coming out of a coma when Kal-El is defeated? Or being shot on a leg and next week walk like it wasn't nothing? Or having healing powers to heal Clark? Or Lionel terminal liver disease being healed by the Transference? Or Clark's blood raising deads? This is Smallville, everything is possible (including time travelling).

SmallvilleMan

02-02-2006, 08:05 AM

Who is calling you heartless? I said the fact of the choice is heartless, and it is.

It was implied.

Like Jonathan coming out of a coma when Kal-El is defeated? Or being shot on a leg and next week walk like it wasn't nothing? Or having healing powers to heal Clark. Or Lionel terminal liver disease being healed by the Transference? This is Smallville, everything is possible (including time travelling).

So, he was going to get healed magically? I doubt it, because like Jor-el said he can't change the course of nature and JK was heading down death row.

Timester

02-02-2006, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
So, he was going to get healed magically? I doubt it, because like Jor-el said he can't change the course of nature and JK was heading down death row.

We don't know that. Who ever thought that Lionel would be saved from terminal disease, by Kryptonian technology? Jonathan also have heart problems in the comics and he managed to came from the death (and brought Clark with him).

SmallvilleMan

02-02-2006, 08:23 AM

We don't know that. Who ever thought that Lionel would be saved from terminal disease, by Kryptonian technology? Jonathan also have heart problems in the comics and he managed to came from the death (and brought Clark with him).

That's because he and Clark switched bodies, remember? Remember the light Lionel saw? This isn't the comics

KRAM-el

02-02-2006, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
It was implied.

Have you NO sense of humor at all? Even you stated this was just fiction. If that was an implication of malice, we ALL should be in the gas chamber...

[i]
So, he was going to get healed magically? I doubt it, because like Jor-el said he can't change the course of nature and JK was heading down death row.

I (personally) am NOT saying he should have made one choice over the other... just pointing out that your logic might possibly be flawed. You seem to be implying (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that Clark's ONLY choice should have been Lana. I disagree with that. It's an objective viewpoint.

And furthermore, if these "implications" assert an "act of war", I'm certainly glad your finger is not on the "button". It's time to stop taking this all so personally (myself included) & return it to an exchange of ideas. Consider the peace treaty signed, for my part.

rocky_841

02-02-2006, 09:35 AM

guys guys, how can you miss something soo simple?

About jonathon: Clarks loves him because jonathon has EARNED it from him. he DESERVES it from him.

About lana: Clark loves her NOT because she has earned it in any way, rather because he WANTS her.

notice the difference? which do you think is moral and which do you think is selfish?

as someone said before, the statement would have had sense if the choice was between jonathon and martha. but if he cant choose between jonathon and lana IF HE HAD TO, then that means he isnt selfless, like he is supposed to be. the ultimate selfish thing would be to choose lana over jonathon. the quite selfish thing would be if his love for jonathon didnt exceed his love for lana by quite a bit. if supermans wants and morals are a tie, id say thats not very superman like. the selfless thing would be if clark were able to choose jonathon (because of that is the LEAST he deserves from clark), over lana, IN SPITE of the fact that he wants her SO DAMN MUCH, and even if it kills him inside to do so.

and of course most ppl in the forum would choose their lover over their parents, why? first of all, i dont think all of our dads are ready to die for us at every turn of life, secondly, almost none of us are as selfless as clark kent is supposed to be. ppl wud prefer to be with the the gal they love, coz she gives you emotional support, hell with dad, wats dad going to offer u anymore now that uve grown up right? its true that its human nature to do so, but so is being selfish. thats also human nature. but its certainly not superman nature. and thats my point. he should be selfless enuf to choose his dad over lana in spite of the fact that he wants her so much, that is ONLY if there is absolutely no way to save them both, even by giving up his own life.

SmallvilleMan

02-02-2006, 09:38 AM

Have you NO sense of humor at all? Even you stated this was just fiction. If that was an implication of malice, we ALL should be in the gas chamber...

Oh, was that suppose to be funny? I guess maybe I should by your version of a joke book, so I can understand what's funny, because that really wasn't funny to me at all. I have a sense of humor, more so than most people, but your so called sense of humor isn't humor to me. Maybe you should try considering that.

I (personally) am NOT saying he should have made one choice over the other... just pointing out that your logic might possibly be flawed. You seem to be implying (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that Clark's ONLY choice should have been Lana. I disagree with that. It's an objective viewpoint.

What I merely pointed out, that if there was a choice, between JK and Lana, it should have been Lana. And I said that if there were only TWO choices.

And furthermore, if these "implications" assert an "act of war", I'm certainly glad your finger is not on the "button". It's time to stop taking this all so personally (myself included) & return it to an exchange of ideas. Consider the peace treaty signed, for my part.

Consider this the peace treaty? Wow, i love when people say they want peace, after taking shots and getting in their own statement. You want to talk about humor? Well, i find that quite funny.:lol: