so many thoughts, so little words

I physically cannot accept canon that Jason was angry and reckless and got himself killed. To me it's the other characters' version of the story because they can't own up to failing a 15 year old (or they simply want to feel better about themselves). So when Alfred says something like that about Jason it means that this is how he sees him. When Tim says he isn't like Jason because he's not impulsive, it means that this is what he thinks Jason was like.

*Jason through a speaker*: If you choose to turn the trolley to prevent his death, you will turn it onto me, your son. And kill me in the very place we met.

For absolutely no reason. No reason at all :)

The fallacy of omission is a logical fallacy where in one leaves out critical details or context when framing an argument.

Details like the fact that Gotham City is not real - it's fictional - and it plays by different rules than the real world.

Or that Batman isn't technically a cop - even though he functions just like one in the narrative (and is, in some instances, explicitly deputized by the cops to work in their steed) - therefore he can do things that would get a regular cop's teeth kicked in.

For example :)

This is done to make an argument appear stronger than it actually is or to reframe a situation to make an audience look at it in a different light.

Now, why would someone want to do this?!

Idk, maybe because their point falls apart under scrutiny when they're forced to provide proper context?!

Such as, the fact that Jason's expectation of Bruce to avenge him didn't come out of thin air; Bruce literally says to Jason, "It is only natural for a father to avenge his son."

Or the fact that the Joker's entire schtick is that he is irredeemable, therefore the only way for him to be stopped is to kill him.

Or, once again, the fact that Gotham City is not real and does not play by the same rules as the real world, evidenced by the fact that it is protected, in part, by a literal fucking vigilante (and that Bad Things Happen when said vigilante is taken out of commission).

Like?!

I'm gonna dispense with the pretensions and point out that I'm responding to this post (to OP, not @/cologona; they're the GOAT).

I'm sorry that Jason in UtH disrupts your easy power fantasy, but you don't get to frame his actions as him "just being mad the world moved on without him". Or frame Batman as just another worker bee within the criminal justice system (as if Bruce doesn't regularly break all kinds of laws doing what he does).

Not only is that a lazy ass take, it completely ignores the context that Bruce, as Jason's father, was the one who put Jason in that costume.

It ignores that Bruce, as Jason's father, mourned him by erasing any trace of him

To the point that Jason couldn't even tell that any time had gone by in Lost Days. That's not a new Robin in the newspaper Talia shows him; that's just a reskinned version of himself.

Something a lot of people don't ever consider, btw. To Gotham, and the world at large, there is no Robin Jason Todd. Just Robin Dick Grayson and Robin Tim Drake.

But I digress.

Your frivolous little take ignores that Gotham hasn't gotten better since Jason has died; it's gotten WORSE.

Hell, it fucking ignores that, within the pages of that grand old confrontation, Bruce fucking admits that he would love nothing more than to kill the Joker. That he understands where Jason is coming from.

He understands exactly what Jason is asking here.

I'm sorry, but y'all don't get to act like Jason was unreasonable. Boohoo about the ugly situation it puts your fave in, but this is a mess entirely of his own making. He didn't even need to kill the Joker; he just has to devise a permanent solution for him.

Yeah, that kind of defeats the purpose of Batman but it also exposed a major flaw in within the Bat mythos -