Mockingjay
discussion
SPOILER do you think they should have a hunger games with capital children?
message 1:
by
S.J
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Oct 19, 2011 01:57PM
i want you guy's opinion!
reply
|
flag
NO! That wouldn't solve anything, plus punishing children for parent's mistakes is a right way to handle things. What do you think?
no cos first, whats the point? to get snow back? well he's dead. i mean, there's no reason to do that
They already did! At the end of Mockingjay, there was a council and they voted to do it. But yeah, it probably didn't solve anything.
umm... NO THEY DIDNT...... katniss voted for it knowing that she wanted to kill pres. coin... thats why katniss says haymitch knows her thats why.... if you didnt pick that up i think this book might be too deep for you
btw, i feel that they shouldn't i agree with katniss
![[Coco]](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1446446786p1/1089930.jpg)
They voted to do it in a meeting of the victors, but never ended up doing it. Because Katniss killed Coin. Paylor would never do something like that.
I could just be reading too deeply into it, but I think Katniss voted that way to throw Coin off. To make her agree to be part of it.She was horrified by the idea, but then realized as long as people like Coin were in power things wouldn't change and there would always be the hatred and cruelty fueling the hunger games.
I can't remember the exact words she used, but it felt to me like she was still sort of playing the games - only with Coin joining.
I think it was that last part where she says "for Prim".
She blamed Prim's death on Coin, since Prim wasn't actually old enough to be where she was when she died and would have only gotten there by a special ok from Coin, who knew about the bombs.
Anyway, I'm rambling now, but I think Katniss only voted that way to sort of keep the games going long enough to kill Coin. So it wouldn't really be like murder.
But no, I don't think they should have kept the Games going. It would have been against everything they fought for and would have been an insult to those who died fighting to abolish the Games.
I think they should only have ONE with Capitol children.
bookwormforeverandalways wrote: "I think they should only have ONE with Capitol children."Same here its cruel and mean and that what's the districts fought for. But the capitol needs to know how it feels to see their children get slaughtered by others.
No..They are fighting fire and fire. The Capitol didn't do anything. They were just unlucky enough to be born in the Capitol. Killing innocent people is wrong.
Gabrielle wrote: "bookwormforeverandalways wrote: "I think they should only have ONE with Capitol children."Same here its cruel and mean and that what's the districts fought for. But the capitol needs to know how i..."
No, they DON'T need to know how that feels. That's just an awful excuse for more violence and bloodshed.
Revenge is stupid and pointless. It just creates more hate and anger, more people being wronged and wanting revenge. It's a never ending cycle.
What if they don't stop with just one game? What if it turns into another Hunger game? Then another? What if there were people in the capital who never agreed with the hunger games in the first place and their children were chosen? It's repeating the cycle all over again.
Replying to anger and violence with more anger and violence NEVER works.
there's a line from a flobots song that I love:"blow for blow never settles the score"
Kristen wrote: "I could just be reading too deeply into it, but I think Katniss voted that way to throw Coin off. To make her agree to be part of it.She was horrified by the idea, but then realized as long as peo..."
I got the same feeling and idea as you when you said Katniss kind of did play the game only with Coin joining. And I think you're right. The people of the Seam, the common person was against The Hunger Games. Katniss did everything she did in this trilogy because she was against the games. If they had decided to continue the games, it would have completely gone against the movement and everything people fought and died for.
Kirby wrote: "there's a line from a flobots song that I love:"blow for blow never settles the score""
Haha, I was thinking something similar...but have never heard that song. The phrase, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" does not fit this circumstance. One of the main ideas of this trilogy, I think, was about stopping unnecessary violence. And, I think that was one of the main messages of the rebellion. If they continued the games, it would have only gone against every they fought for.
Children should not have to pay for their parents mistakes, period. Sadly they do sometimes...
I'm not really so sure that you could ascribe such altruistic motives to katniss' actions throughout the series...she wasn't really so much against the games as she was just trying to protect herself and her own family. remember how she was trying to put out the rebellion like snow told her to? I don't think she would have ended up involved in the rebellion if they hadn't forcibly taken her...
Dude, this question alone shows the message of what MockingJay was all about. And that of what is wrong with human thinking at times. Which is making history repeat itself in senseless ways. Oringal poster this is not to offend you. But doing the eye for an eye approach or swapping one set of kids for another would not solve or change a single thing. Just would mean another set of cruel people are willing to set others up to die and not learning from what terribleness already happened.
Kirby wrote: "there's a line from a flobots song that I love:"blow for blow never settles the score""
You Nailed it.
bookwormforeverandalways wrote: "I think they should only have ONE with Capitol children."And then one will turn into two, and two into three.... pretty soon it will become an annual event, just like the Hunger Games.
Never have a single games with ANYONE! You see what happens to the victors? That's what's gonna happen to the Capitol people. They didn't do anything, they were just born there. And you think they should be in one? By the way, "you" is just you in general.
No. What did the children do? Do not punish the children for the sins of their fathers. You know?
Do you think Katniss voted yes to one last Hunger Games, because she genuinely wanted it, or so she could get Coin's trust in order to kill her? (And, did Haymitch follow her because he knew or because he wanted one?)
I think no. The Hunger Games were the whole reason the rebellion and everything happened. It could happen again. It's not worth the risk, although I do agree, without wiping out the human race, the capitol people need to be punished. But I was thinking more like having to share their money or something of the like.
yes! absolutely! they deserve it! what they should have done is not scheduled to kill snow, and made him watch his granddaughter suffer, the way the districts watched their children. you can dish it out, but cant take it in.
They totally should have made a hunger games just for the capital children! The citizens not only looked forward to watching the games, but they liked to see children brutally murdered for enjoyment. It's sick. They like to watch young kids kill each other for their entertainment. The districts had to go threw 75 games, killing 1,701 children, and 18 victors (The 75th Hunger Games), in total. They should have made it that there would be 75 more games, but only capital children were entered. Every twenty five years a Quarter Quell would be held, with a twist just like the ones the districts went through. And under no circumstances(even quarter quells), no children from the districts would be entered in the reaping.
If Finnick were here (sobs) He would have said no. SO I shall vote no for him and me. In honor of his memory.
No they shouldn't hold another hunger game. What they should do is round up every one from the capitol, and broadcast the slow and sick torture of every child related to an official. The officials themselves should be jailed and forced to watch the videos of their family dying slowly. Not to mention they should also be prevented from killing themselves in anyway. Remove the limbs and teeth, force feeding tubes etc. An eye for an eye? An eye for creating your own special hell is more acceptable
No, because it would show that they were just as cruel as the capitol. They are creating a new world and they shouldn't start it off with another hunger games.
No, because its sick!
well i LOVE the idea of taking REVENGE and i myself am like taking REVENGE if anyone hurts me or ppl i love but i dont think the children should be punished for the mistakes the adults made (i love kids) they should have it with the leaders and decision makers of the capitol who actually thought of the friggin idea!!!!!
All the people saying no, the children aren't to blame. They are as much to blame as the parents. If your parent kills thousands of children and you do not even take the time to say "no, stop or that's wrong", you are just as guilty. Hunger game is not the answer, extinction of all capitol residents in the most inhumane possible IS the definitive answer
Li wrote: "All the people saying no, the children aren't to blame. They are as much to blame as the parents. If your parent kills thousands of children and you do not even take the time to say "no, stop or th..."i really dont think the parents will listen if kids say"dont do this" its kinda lame to think that as u cant change certain ideals just by saying "stop" let alone children doing it so i think the kids should stay outta this as they werent the ones who were patronizing it as much as the parents
No, everybody was against The Hunger Games why would they make people go throughout it again? Everybody would hate Katniss because of it and nobody wants that!
Of course not. This was one of the things the rebels and Katniss were fighting for: NO MORE HUNGER GAMES! If there were more Hunger Games after the rebelion, then all these people died for nothing...
Still no! I agree with Lady A.
No. not just because it's inhumane but because what will they do to the victor? He/She might grow up in hatred looking for vengeance and the cycle begins again.
Mary Grace wrote: "No. not just because it's inhumane but because what will they do to the victor? He/She might grow up in hatred looking for vengeance and the cycle begins again."yeah..... that is kinda true i agree with u :)
still no! It would be a travesty and be disrespectful to those children that Died!
Srikari wrote: "Li wrote: "All the people saying no, the children aren't to blame. They are as much to blame as the parents. If your parent kills thousands of children and you do not even take the time to say "no,..."But they saw it as acceptable, they condone their parents behavior. They are guilty, and deserve to die for their parents sins. And their parents deserve to watch them die slowly with no escape from the hell they themselves created. Let the capitol and their children both burn...slowly
no way! its horrible to see people kill each other, no matter who they are or where they come from...
no because that was the whole point of the war and killing the capital wouldnt solve anything. plus why would you punish the children when it was the adults that messed up not the kids. having gone through the hunger games herself katniss should have realized that
Li wrote: "All the people saying no, the children aren't to blame. They are as much to blame as the parents. If your parent kills thousands of children and you do not even take the time to say "no, stop or th..."
children arent to blame because they physically have no ability to stop the games just as all the kids being reaped couldnt stop the games for 75 years
children arent to blame because they physically have no ability to stop the games just as all the kids being reaped couldnt stop the games for 75 years
No killing the children n the Capital would cause war to begin again in a worse way, I don't know how it would go but there would be disaster to the whole world.. NOTHING would BE LEFT ALIVE!
I think it would be to cruel to have a REAl hunger game's instead they should have said they were going to, have a reaping, train the kid's, have interviews all while the capitol people are living just for a short period of time like the districts did, then they could either last minute stop the game's and explain that they wanted the capitol citizens to feel what they had been through but not actually kill the kid's or fake deaths and tell them there child was dead and In the end tell them the truth and take the capitol people out of the districts and leave the past behind them do nobody actually get's killed.
Christy wrote: "I think it would be to cruel to have a REAl hunger game's instead they should have said they were going to, have a reaping, train the kid's, have interviews all while the capitol people are living ..."That's horrible. Putting innocent children through that even if the intention is not go ahead with it.
The obvious answer is no. However, the alternative was to kill all Capitol citizens. Coin suggested one more symbolic Hunger Games instead.
There wasn't a third option of having neither.
With the exception of Katniss and Haymitch, none of the other victors catch on. They all vote as if it's between having the Games or not and not taking into consideration the full consequences of a 'no'
vote.
A 'yes' vote actually results in far fewer deaths. But it's still wrong.
Katniss realises that the only solution is to kill Coin. She then votes 'yes' to keep Coin's trust.
"Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster." ― Friedrich NietzscheWhy would they choose to become what they fought so hard against? It would prove that the only thing that changed was who the oppressors are. The only people who should be punished are the leaders because they were the ones responsible. They were the ones who had the power to change things and chose not to.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
