#low morality daniel

[lenskyq]

[lenskyq]

Low Morality Daniel frees Sean

[lenskyq]

"the ending, where Daniel and Sean live together in Mexico, is selfish and does not take into account the wishes of Daniel, who does not want to do this/ does not want to go to Mexico"

*deep breath*

okay, I just once again came across a similar comment on youtube, and I could just pass by. but I understand that I have a great need to speak out about this. even if other people have already talked about it.

you know, the statement that Daniel "does not want" to go to Mexico is perhaps the most common, which can be found as a criticism of Blood Brothers. that he just wants an "ordinary, comfortable life" like any child, that Daniel deserves this normal life, which he gets in the high morality endings.

but the problem is that people don't understand one simple fact: with different levels of morality, Daniel has different needs/priorities. with high morality, he prioritizes "morality" and the desire for a normal life, with low morality, he prioritizes his brotherhood with Sean.

people have remembered the image of "high morality Daniel" and believe that this is the only canon for Daniel as a character, forgetting that there is a way of "low morality".

with low morality, Daniel as a character is aimed at only one outcome: to stay together with Sean, not to let them be separated. he decides to cross the border even if Sean decides to surrender. this is what leads to the ending of "Lone Wolf".

the essence of the endings of "Lone Wolf" and "Parting Ways" is that Daniel makes his own decision based on his priorities, even if Sean does not agree with this decision. the statement that "Blood Brothers" is violence against Daniel and what he does not want does not make sense, because existing an ending "Lone Wolf" and because this is what Daniel demands at the border: to cross the border. "we can't let them catch us" and "don't say that, let's just get out of here" when Sean only dares to hint about surrender.

Daniel doesn't want Sean to surrender because it will lead to them being separated. Daniel crosses the border and does not let Sean give up if he decides to do so, because Daniel does not want them to be separated.

In Blood Brothers, Sean acts based on Daniel's wishes, because that's what Daniel wants: cross the border. He does not force Daniel, Daniel himself inclines Sean to this decision and this is the only decision that Daniel will make.

just as the highly moral Daniel cannot cross the border with Sean, and in any case chooses "a normal life instead of living with Sean", the low moral Daniel does not accept Sean's decision to surrender and decides to cross the border, go with Sean to Mexico.

Daniel, who wants a "normal life," gets it. Daniel, who wants to stay with Sean (no matter where, in an abandoned house in the middle of the forest, in the house of his grandparents, on a plantation, in Dali or in Puerto Lobos), wants to stay with Sean and he does not need this "normal" life if it means separation from Sean.

yes, at first he was hesitant about moving to Mexico, and that's fine. many adults are even worried about moving to another city, and here a ten-year-old child is talking about moving to another country. it's okay to doubt. people doubt even when they are offered a better job instead of the usual for them, but uncomfortable and low-paid work. this does not mean that a person "does not want" changes. we are always hesitant when it comes to major changes.

when Sean convinces Daniel that everything will be fine, Daniel stops worrying and begins to fantasize about what their life in Puerto Lobos will be like, enthusiastically waiting for this moment. apparently from the fact that he doesn't want it very much (no).

Daniel doesn't want to go to Mexico so much that he locks Sean in the car and starts attacking the cops in order to clear the way and redirect them to Mexico. see the logic? I don't see it either.

many refer to David's words, but they are not objective (remembering how many times he was seriously wrong in lis1: in relation to Kate, in a relationship with his own stepdaughter, etc.). especially when, in contrast to David, we have characters who speak in defense of Blood Brothers, such as Karen (literally their mother, to whom Daniel has a strong connection) and Finn (to whom Daniel has a strong connection). Brody, whom we meet in episode 1, also approves of their trip to Puerto Lobos. Even Jacob writes in his letter and personally tells them that he wants a successful escape to Puerto Lobos for them.

of course, we must have characters who, in contrast to the "Mexico ending team", will convince us to surrender at the border (grandparents, David, Lyla, even Hank, lol). it would be strange if they didn't exist. but to refer only to them, ignoring the characters who tell us to cross the border, is strange and incorrect.

the low morality Daniel really wants to go to Mexico, because the main thing for him is to stay together with Sean, not to let them be separated. this is exactly what he wants, not a "normal" life, like the highly moral Daniel. and each of the two Daniels acts based on their desires and needs.

stop ignoring the low-moral Daniel and judge him by the standards of the high-normal, pls.

in Blood Brothers, Sean acts based on Daniel's wishes, he contradicts them in the ending (Lone Wolf), where he decides to give him a "normal" life, which he does not need if the price is separation from Sean. you could even say that in Lone Wolf, Sean was deceived by those characters who convinced him that Daniel needed a normal life when in fact he needed Sean.

the only ending that can be said that Sean "uses" Daniel is Parting Ways. Not Blood Brothers.

[lenskyq]

someone: poor baby Danny, he sacrifices a normal life and loses his childhood in Mexico, and does what he doesn't want to do because he can't disobey his older brother. :( Daniel in the canon: *blocks the fucking car door, taking control of the car, and throws the cops out of his way to cross the border, despite Sean's screams "DANIEL NO STOP IT RIGHT NOW!!!"*

[lenskyq]

"when Daniel attacks the cops in Blood Brothers/Lone Wolf, it's so terrible! they don't have to be harmed at all, it's literally shown in Parting Ways! low-morality Daniel is who attacks first. cops were just defending!"

Um, well, how would… no? it seems to me that when people say such things, they really don't understand what happened at the border and what happened in Parting Ways.

at the border, they were surrounded by cops, whose main task is to prevent Daniel and Sean from crossing the border, arrest Sean and present Sean before the court. it is absolutely obvious that they will not let the Diaz brothers go. so Sean and Daniel have only two choices, it's to give up or to continue the fight. the second option means that Daniel will have to attack the cops.

I really wonder how people imagine a "humane" way to cross the border when it doesn't exist.

if Daniel had just moved the cars out of their way without hurting anyone and opened the way for them to move on, the cops wouldn't have let them go. they wouldn't say something like, "well, since you broke through our fence with the help of unknown magical powers of your younger brother, then have a good trip!".

the cops would continue to chase the Diaz brothers and attack them because there are no other options here. they won't let them go just because Sean and Daniel just drove past the fence, and even more so they won't do it when they witness Daniel's superpowers. the cops came there for the sole purpose of stopping and detaining them. how can people imagine that the superpower demonstrated by Daniel and going beyond the fence will convince the cops to abandon their goal, turn around peacefully and leave with the words "oh no, we screwed up! well, it would be impolite to continue chasing them, so we give up"?

"but in Parting Ways!…" in Parting Ways, the cops literally started shooting at them, trying to kill them, as soon as Sean drove on. they started shooting even before Daniel even damaged their cars and demonstrated superpowers. wtf, people. if they want to cross the border, they will have to attack the cops, otherwise the cops will kill them. the cops try to kill them even when Daniel isn't attacking them. after that, how can you say that a low-morality Daniel, who wants to cross the border, could not attack?

this is literally what Sean says to do when he decides to cross the border. In Parting Ways, Sean wants Daniel to do what he does in Blood Brothers and Lone Wolf, which is why the highly moral Daniel says he doesn't want to do it and jumps out of the car.

Daniel: I don't wanna! I'm not hurting anyone else!

Sean: It's too late! They're shooting at us, Daniel. This is the only way!

Parting Ways directly tells us that they can't cross the border any other way, but the fandom somehow drew the exact opposite conclusion from this. it really blows mind.

The only reason the cops didn't follow Sean was Daniel falling out of the car. the younger Diaz, who demonstrated incomprehensible superpowers in front of them, is clearly a much higher priority for them than his older brother.

if Daniel had stayed with Sean, the cops would have continued the chase. if they had driven on without attacking the cops, the cops would have continued the chase. so… it's obvious. low-morality Daniel attacks not because he wants to be awesome cool badass, but because they have no other way out. high-morality Daniel jumps out of the car not "for fun", but because he does not want to attack (and it is necessary to attack in order to cross the border together).

"Daniel destroyed the cars" but did not erase the cops and Florens's memory of what they saw.

it's a little funny when criticize the Blood Brothers and the actions of the Diaz brothers at the border, but ignore that what happened at the border in the Blood Brothers is what Sean demanded from Daniel in Parting Ways. Daniel, who is comfortable with Sean's desires and shares them is bad. Sean, who forces a scared Daniel to do something Daniel doesn't want (risking his life), is good. although what Sean demands from Daniel is bad by the same logic.

okay…

[lenskyq]

A friendly reminder: Daniel with "low morality" is not a bad person and not a "psychopath", as some say. He just put himself and his brother first, that doesn't make him evil.

He has no desire to harm all people indiscriminately, most often when he uses his powers, he acts in a fit of strong emotions (like Daniel high morality, you know) and does it only because this person threatens him and Sean, their lives and safety. So Daniel just wants to protect himself and his older brother.

He still gets closeness to people, loves them and worries about them. He is still closeness to Chris (and "low morality" Daniel has more chances to save him from an accident), to Finn, to Jacob's sister, to Karen, etc. Jacob's sister still finds him kind, funny and sweet. Other people consider him the same.

It's just that "high morality" Daniel puts moral beliefs first (to the point that he ready to leave Sean and spend his life under house arrest), and "low morality" Daniel puts the safety of those he loves first.

And six years later, he only intimidates the bandits who threatened to kill Sean (in the ending of "Blood Brothers") instead of really causing them serious harm (as they threatened to do to Sean).

He's not a monster. He's just protecting his loved ones.