Mockingjay
discussion
Would you of held a hunger games with all capatiol kids?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jonah
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Dec 22, 2011 09:24PM
They talked about it and it made me wonder, I think it would be wrong but what about you??
reply
|
flag
First of all, spell check exists for a reason. In answer to your question, I think that it would be wrong because they prove themselves to be no better than the Capitol. The children are the innocents, and they teach the world nothing by punishing those who are the victims of their society. If anything, they should hold a Hunger Games with the gamemakers as tributes.
No I would never do it. The kids have nothing to do with the games. I also don't think having the game makers enjoying their creation by placing them in the same game will not solve anything. It will only create chain reaction of hatred and anger, and one day it may involve the descendants. They should be punished yes, but according to the law.
Nurlely wrote: "No I would never do it. The kids have nothing to do with the games. I also don't think having the game makers enjoying their creation by placing them in the same game will not solve anything. It wi..."Yeah I agree with you! I think it would only make the rebels as bad as the capitol
I wouldn't have done that because how could someone who went through all that, risking their lives, knowing that innocent people are dying. How could someone who fights to change this turn around and repeat the same thing. I thought it was the wrong choice. I would have never done the same thing. That's like repeating history.
I really don't know. It is hard for us to understand why they would want that kind of revenge, because we haven't lost or suffered because of the Capitol.But imagine if you were Katniss - and had been in the Games. You're city have been ruined by the Capitol, and your friends killed.
I think I would want revenge... Though I know it really is bad.
It's also that they have grown up in that kind of environment. People dying of hunger and in Hunger games.
If I were in the book, hmm. I think I would want revenge.
But I am not in the book - so I won't want revenge.
( I know this sounds very complicated - but I hope you can keep up with me)
This is such a dilemna... I disagree and agree with the views posted here... It is just so hard to imagine what you would do in a situation when that situation is far-fetched and even fictional, I can't imagine myself in that situation so I won't be able to say what I would do or judge Katniss for what she did. Also, often we make different choices in a situation from what we imagined we would do.
there was enough damage from the Hunger Games, plus it was the presidents fault and the ones before him, not the kids.
No one deserves to go through the Hunger Games.
I would hope that I would stand and be a better person in the face of change, strong enough to make the choice to end the violence, but I found my self understanding the reason for wanting the hungergames as revenge. I am glad the author added it to the book it was memorable for me.
i see how it can be from both sides. Katniss-from being in the games wants them to have to go through it like she did. even if it's the wrong thing she wanted revenge. i don't think it would be a good idea to have another hunger games with Capitol children. they're helpless. it's like sending a bunch of little kids into a boxing match. they wouldnt know what to do and die easily. the winner would be very very lucky to have survived seeing how they came from luxury/everything the rebels have done to them also. who knows my point is no more hunger games
yeah, I don't know if you can even call it "revenge" when you're taking it out on innocents...
Casey wrote: "I would like to point something out.When the council in District 13 votes as to whether or not to have a new version of The Hunger Games with the Capital children and Katniss votes yes, I don't t..."
that's what I had always assumed...I took katniss' "for prim" to mean that she had coin in her sights, not the capitol children- who had absolutely nothing to do w/ prim's death...
ooooi never thought of that kirby
ya sorryhere i will repost
ooooooo
i never thought of that casey and kirby
Casey wrote: "I said it first......:D"sorry, wasn't trying to steal your idea- I was just saying that I agree w/ you and explaining why...
Casey wrote: "Kirby wrote: "Casey wrote: "I said it first......:D"sorry, wasn't trying to steal your idea- I was just saying that I agree w/ you and explaining why..."
I didn't think you were stealing it in t..."
:)
I wanted to say that I thought about it too, just for fun. But that is a big lie. When I answered the Q, I thought of it as if I was the one being responsible in deciding what I must do.^__^
Casey, first-ur dad read the hunger games too?My parents keep a mile away from my books.O_______oAnyways, I think I would vote yes,what person could be that hateful to send children to an arena to fight till the end and then enjoy all the blood.It's disgusting. Can you imagine-you killed innocent people just for your own god damn life and then lived in luxury.I wasn't in the Hunger Games but I dreamt of that situation right after I read the books.Plus, the Capitol deserved to die so I conclude my point.
Yes.I vote yes.
No, enough killing!
No i couldn't i would punish them for what they did but i would not make them suffer through a hunger games because that would kill everything the rebels had been working for. i think that if you want to beat and overcome the evil that lives you have to get rid of all off it you can't repeat it to show them a taste of their own medicine and by doing to them what they had done to you it would have destroyed the rebels by committing the same horrible mistake as the people who first started the Games
Katniss did not agree with a new games with the capitol children, that is why she kills her for even suggesting it
and because it was her fault for the killing of her sister, but that is beside the point, the main reason is that she is beside herself when the dumb lady suggest it, and she gets shot in the face for it, well it needed to be done
Sheesh,i know i can be harsh but really I wouldnt do it just for revenge I agree with Katniss the killing Coin.I just said that for Prim and Finnick and Peeta and stuff.Who didn't deserve to suffer like that.If I made you feel sth wrong about it I apologize,ok?
Siena wrote: "First of all, spell check exists for a reason. In answer to your question, I think that it would be wrong because they prove themselves to be no better than the Capitol. The children are the innoce..."Haha...Siena, I'm just commenting on your "spell check" comment. It amazes me that this is a reading website and so many of these "readers" cannot spell or formulate a proper sentence. Also, although I hate spell check and do not use it myself, technology has made it virtually impossible to make spelling errors yet there are so many on here. One last thing, the question should have been "Would you HAVE held..." Not "Would you of held..." That's all.
ahhhh, let me think..... yes! they deserve it. we need to kill of a few of their citizens. it will show them how it felt. plus we don't need capitol children growing up, trying to bring back the old ways. no way. let the special Capitol hunger games begin!
well, the Capitol punished the Districts for what the people before them did. it is the exact same thing! they fight for justice. for every action there is an equal reaction. the current districts don't have anything to do with the dark days but they are still punished. besides, they would only hold ONE game. not like they are holding 75.
okay, but snow was a dirty, ugly, unjust,snake-like, robot-of-a-man. he didn't care. katniss cares, but she wants revenge. she voted yes, even haymitch backed her up. plutarch said that everyone was in the honeymoon stage, where everyone is getting along. so, the capitol citizens must have not began a riot about it. and after it is over, everyone will be better, stronger from their experiences, and have a little sympathy for the districts, and the districts will have some sympathy for the capitol.
if she didn't agree, why did she vote yes? and we don't know exactly what that plan was, not saying that there was one. the Capitol Game is just a detail that ads something more to the story to beef it up.
why didn't she just say that, she could have said this: 'well, if we hold this games, we would be just like Snow. Wouldn't we Coin?' Katniss already doesn't like her, so she could get smart with Coin. Plus, probably no more than a handful of people realized the relations between Snow and Coin. I still believe that Katniss voted yes, because she wanted to avenge Prim's death, and the death of her dear friend Finnick.
well that is not nice! i am in a position of high respect, and considering my age, that is something of excellence.
it's okay. but my high respect due to my position is, truly a thing excellence.
well, I actually thought I understood what casey was saying, and I agree w/ her, at least w/ what I thought she was saying...it's never good to have people who believe in blind vengeance against innocent people in positions where they're powerful enough to make those wrong decisions.
I believe I already put this quote in one discussion, but it's a good line from a flobots song: "blow for blow never settles the score." if no one ever stops seeking vengeance, it will never end...b/c then the capitol people would feel the need to avenge their children, and so on, for forever. SOMEONE has to be the bigger person and just move on the best they can.
No, never. To have had another Hunger Games made Coin no better than Snow. It turned out that Coin WAS no better than Snow. Just the idea of continuing to punish a country for a rebellion that few of the people were alive during is despotic cruelty. Even the worst despots of real life - Stalin, Hitler, etc. - never thought up continuing to punish people for the rebellion of their parents - as far as I know.
Ever though the Capitol can be evil i still would never be able to do that.
Yes, the Capitol is awful and they deserve to be punished. Slaughtering their children is not right. The Hunger Games, no matter who you put in the ring, could never be a good thing - it's murder. It's cold and cruel. I'm sure the victors and the rest of Panem would feel awesome if the Capitol got some of their own medicine forced down their throats, but it's murder of innocent people. KIDS, at that. So many things wrong with it.But hey, it's all for the publicity. It makes a good show, apparently. And isn't what we all want most? The way to make the most money, no matter what the cost? That's how I see it most of these days.
So, If i were Katniss, I would've said no, but thats from her perspective. And I'm not Katniss... am I??My perspective on the situation would be to say YES.
I know, I know, " We are no better then the capitol if we have another Hunger Games" but we wouldn't be like them if we changed it around a little bit.
I would first take volunteers at all ages from the capitol. If a fifty year old man wants to go in, let him! So all the people who actually wanted to go from the capitol could have their names drawn from a bowl. So, instead of being like the capitol and forcing them to go in , we let them choose for themselves. It would be more like a big bloody soccer game then a hated event all around Panem.
But the surviving tributes could still get their revenge by becoming the game makers. If you volunteer to go in this thing then THEY SHOULD KNOW THE RISKS of what not only the other people in the arena could and will do to you but what the game maker could and will do to you. The game makers (living tributes) could have lots of "fun" by laying out traps, mutts, and other beasts to people who KNOW THE RISKS of what could happen happen. Its not a bad idea. I bet tons of Capitol people would want to chance to be seen on T.V... I mean, most of them are pretty self centered and very, if I should say, "wantie". But it would be optional to watch it. I would be just like normal shows that air nowadays. Like I said, a big bloody soccer game. So if you didn't wanted to see peoples guts beaten to pulp then you didn't have to. ( How Gross!!!!) Also, when it was over, you dion't get all the fame and glory when you win. You would just win, get a little prize money then you leave and go home. Even with these conditions, capitol people would be Hungry to be in the Hunger Games (pun intended).
But in the rare event that not enough Capitol people would want to be in this even then the whole thing would just be canceled altogether. I mean you would be a alot like the capitol if you force people to be in this event that no one wants to be in.
And this might be taking to the extreme but if enough people want it, then it could stay and still be an annual thing. Like the Super Bowl. People can hate the event like people do for golf, rugby, or extreme cliff jumping. But whose really wants to stop people who WANT to do this??? I certainly am not one to prevent them from doing what THEY VOLUNTEERED TO DO!!!
********************************************************************
So, I am Saying yes, have another Hunger Games, but in a different way!
********************************************************************
I think its ridiculous to kill innocent children, yeah its wrong the capitol did it but thats not those childrens fault
no way.it's not like the KIDS are the ones who are terrible.
besides,
the whole war was partially based on ending the hunger games anyway.
No, two wrongs don't make a right.Besides I mean I am sure not every single person in the capital wanted to have the Hunger Games in the first place.
Same. If they do another hunger games won't that just be the same thing happening all over again, for a different generation to loathe eachother? Imagine Snow's granddaughter- she was innocent. She didn't know better. Punishment to the merciless guards who killed innocents like Thrash should be punished, but not even them should be punished in that way.
Anyone who thinks of holding the Hunger Games like Coin should read these thoughts from Katniss again.I no longer feel any allegiance to these monsters called human beings, despise being one myself. I think Peeta was onto something about us destroying one another and letting some decent species take over. Because something is significantly wrong with a creature that sacrifices its children's lives to settle its differences. You can spin it any way you like. Snow thought the Hunger Games were an efficient means of control. Coin thought the parachutes would expedite the war. But in the end, who does benefit? No one. The truth is, it benefits no one to live in a world where these thing happen.
I would do it, but not on children. I would track down the Gamemakers and the other people who are involved with the killing of the children in the Hunger Games. Then, I would put all of them into the arena, and have a Hunger Games with weapons that are strong enough to kill a wild animal, but not a human. This means that they cannot kill each other to make the game progress quicker. Also, poisonous berries (Nightlock) cannot be force fed to another player. The berries will be biologically modified to detect whether it is a forced feeding or a feeding of accident. If it is a forced one, it would slip from the attacker's hands. If by accident, the eater dies. This lets them have an entire month or something to starve and live off of raw meat and constant dread. If there are more Gamemakers than 24, I would have another Hunger Games right after the first one ended. And finally, I would let the victors have their own Hunger Games. The winner will be set free, but he will be marked as a person with a criminal record and cannot get a job that has high pay so he lives off of food scraps.Yes, I am indeed that evil.
Do people forget that the games were literally based on forcing CHILDREN to fight to the death for entertainment, in order to show the districts that they were lower than the Capitol and that this is a punishment (or what they claimed was to keep peace) for themPutting the children of the Capitol in a similar situation would simply reverse the roles, meaning that the Capitol and the oppressive government and upper classes would still exist, meaning nothing would have effectively changed.
The people who had full control of the games should be punoshed sure, but most of them died anyways, so.
I say no because the kids had no say in what their parents or President Snow did.
i think i would have held a hunger games with the capital children. they knew what was going on and hey knew that thtey would not have to go in it.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
