October 2001 posts
Dark Alchemy is getting around! -- Liq, 22:26:47 10/05/01 Fri
Logs show direct links from PlanetX.com and GET THIS:
http://www.santaclaracountylib.org/
Go figure!
Anyone else have a review to share?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> New Fictionary Corner Features -- Liq, 22:53:08 10/05/01 Fri
Sol has come through again with some amazing design for Fictionary Corner. All stories and essays are not listed and I have just added the new feedback feature at the end of each story and essay.
If you have not had the opportunity before, please visit the Corner, read, enjoy and send feedback to the authors so they know they are appreciated and keep writing for us!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> hunh? what? what? -- Solitude1056, 22:56:58 10/05/01 Fri
All stories and essays are not listed
Which ones did I miss???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> oops.... my bad.... all stories ARE listed. Go to bed already, Sol. -- Liq, 23:12:21 10/05/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> How do we see the feedback submited? -- vampire hunter D, 23:43:31 10/05/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> bwahahah I'm still awake! Feedback's supposed to go directly to the author(s). -- Solitude1056, 23:49:44 10/05/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Liq - go check the fiction titles!! -- Marie, 07:47:33 10/06/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Naughty Sol... it's HeartSTINGS ... sheesh -- Liq, 11:25:12 10/06/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethics of Resurrection -- change, 17:51:04 10/08/01 Mon
I read through Masquerade's analysis of Bargaining including the section on the ethics of resurrecting Buffy, and I just don't agree with it. The gist of the section is that resurrecting Buffy was an immoral act by Willow. Even the argument presented in favor of resurrecting her seems to suggest that it was a necessary evil and Willow is being corrupted by the Hellmouth. I don't agree with this. I don't see why resurrecting Buffy, or anyone else, would be immoral.
The arguments against it seem to be (1) Willow is playing god by exercising the power of life and death, (2) Willow did this without Buffy's consent, (3) Willow has diminished the value of Buffy's sacrifice, and (4) Willow has taken away Buffy's reward (going to Heaven) for her sacrifice. I do not believe any of these are valid arguments.
The playing god argument only applies to taking life, not giving it. We give life to people all the time. Doctors save dieing patients. Doctor's even resuscitate patients who have died. Parents create life through sex, and then nurture life by raising their children. You can't call any of these acts evil, and they all either create new life, or extend or enhance someone's existing life. Playing god is evil when you kill or hurt people, not when you heal them or create life.
The argument that it is immoral because Willow did it without Buffy's consent is also invalid for pretty much the same reason. If someone's heart stops, Doctors do not ask for the victim's consent to try to resuscitate them. The only time consent for such a thing is asked is if the patient is terminally ill and resuscitating them will simply prolong their suffering. In this case, doctors are really asking patients for their consent to let them die, not to revive them. From the discussion that Willow and Xander had, it seems that Willow was fairly certain that if the spell worked Buffy would be brought back whole, not in severe pain. And, except for the demons and the fact that they didn't get her out of her coffin, it seems that she was brought back in one piece.
I really disagree with the argument that resurrecting Buffy has somehow diminished her sacrifice. When Buffy jumped off the tower, she sacrificed her life to save the World and her sister. She knew that she was going to die, and she had no reason to think Willow was going to resurrect her. The point being that she willingly sacrificed her life. Being brought back from the dead does not change any of that. She still sacrificed her life to save the world with no hope of surviving. Her act has in no way been diminished.
I find the argument about taking away Buffy's reward rather annoying. That argument diminishes Buffy's sacrifice. It implies that Buffy sacrificed herself to get a ticket into heaven. Rewards and punishments are not the reason why people should act ethically. People should act ethically because it is the right thing to do. I like to think that Buffy sacrificed herself because she felt it was the right thing to do, not to get into heaven. I have no problem with the PTB giving Buffy a reward for her sacrifice, just with the idea that that was her motivation. If the PTB do decide to give Buffy a ticket into heaven, I don't see why resurrecting her should take that away. She will just have an opportunity to continue her life and then go to heaven afterwards.
Where I do have a problem with Willow's resurrection spell is that the Scoobies should have thought it through and dug her out of her grave first. They should also have done it in a place where Buffy would have been more comfortable: either in her house, or maybe in that pretty garden by the lake where Willow killed the fawn. However, I don't have a problem with the idea of bring her back. I don't see how you can say that resurrecting her was an evil act. If you do, then you have to also believe that healing sick people is evil too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ethics of Resurrection -- gds, 19:03:09 10/08/01 Mon
You said this better than I did - my post is
Re: Willow and the fawn................ -- gds, 18:20:58 10/08/01 Mon
I have always been flaggergasted at the idea of cheapening one's death. Like death was something to be valued. I am happy to see someone refute it so eloquently.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ethics of Resurrection -- kostadis roussos, 23:02:44 10/11/01 Thu
>I have always been flaggergasted at the idea of cheapening one's death. Like death was something to be valued. I am happy to see someone refute it so eloquently
Death is not something to be valued.
The circumstances of our death are to be valued.
They are our last moments on this earth.
What makes Willow's actions immoral?
First we must define what moral is in this context. If life is the single most precious commodity in the Universe, then any action, that does preserves life is Good.
But then this statement hinges on what we mean by life.
If life is defined to be the incarnation of a particular
person in a particular body at a particular time, in the
"real world", then any action that preserves or extends that life is good.
But what if "life" is more expansively defined to be that period of time that particular "consciousness" exists. Or in the buffyverse context, the existence of the soul?
In that case the morality of bringing Buffy back to life is similar to the morality of going to a retired person and asking them to take up whatever task they left to a younger/different generation.
Then the question is: does Willow have the right to force Buffy out of retirement?
This is no longer about life and death, this is about the morality of someone choosing for you what you should be doing.
So Willow was selfish (and that is a bad although not necessarily evil thing) for bringing her out of retirement.
However, if she continues to define what people should and should not be doing based on her selfish needs, and use her powers to achieve those ends, then perhaps she will become evil.
cheers,
kostadis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ethics of Resurrection -- gds, 19:09:21 10/08/01 Mon
You said this better than I did - my post is
Re: Willow and the fawn................ -- gds, 18:20:58 10/08/01 Mon
I have always been flaggergasted at the idea of cheapening one's death. Like death was something to be valued. I am happy to see someone refute it so eloquently.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Mortality -- Kerri, 19:32:48 10/08/01 Mon
A theme of Buffy has always been the necessity of mortality as part of the cycle. The death of the old(be it physical orpsychological death) is necessary for the new to emerge. Change is needed-death is the next part of life. In the Buffyverse those who defy death(vamps) are stagnent and do not grow. Death is not something the Buffyverse looks down on-it is natural and part of a necessary cycle. Bringing people back defies nature and god(if we assume there are higher powers in the buffyverse). I
t also disrespects Buffy. She is "raped." Her death was her choice. Her ressurection was not. Ultimately what will restore the cycle will be Buffy's choice to be "reborn". Did I make any sense there?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Mortality -- gds, 20:08:35 10/08/01 Mon
Bringing people back defies nature and god
That is like saying living defies nature. Predators want to kill. Weather, earthquakes etc. destroy lives and means of livelihood. This is the age-old argument of those who want to keep people "in their place". Not too long ago people said, "If god had meant us to fly he would have given us wings". Just as meaningless. When we move into new territories we should be cautious (which is why I like the way Xander voiced his concern using the driving analogy), but the playing god/ violating the will of nature theme has no merit. And as for defiling nature - we and our actions are part of nature. We are not a virus attacking nature.
If I seem impassioned on this subject – I am. This kind of philosophy has reigned death, suffering and destruction on humanity for ages. Things we take for granted now as normal would not exist today if someone hadn’t said, "NO" to this philosophy. People have been tortured and murdered for seeking to expand the boundaries of human knowledge. Science by its very nature refutes this philosophy, notwithstanding the religious apologists in the scientific community.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Mortality -- Cleanthes, 08:56:19 10/09/01 Tue
Arguments against finite means to deal with finite problems convert death to illness. At that level of discourse, I'm in complete agreement with "technological fixes". Go ahead, advance medical science! I agree that saying this act was "against nature" amounts to a circular argument: "It's wrong because it's wrong". Further exploration of "nature", though, can bring out a qualitative difference between death and other things amenible to technological fixes.
One of the atheist existentialists, probably Sartre, made the point that even atheists are dead forever. This is in the context of Kierkegaard's discussions of Christianity and the mediation between finite existence on one hand and an infinite death and an infinite "God" on the other.
Death is the gift from infinite understanding to finite understanding. Death marks the difference between finite humans and infinite qualities/powers/time/nature. To the extent that we can apprehend this qualitative difference, we are free. This freedom in the face of death marks the highest, strongest and best power humans have. It's invictus. If some cheesy slavemaster can later overturn this, humans lose their freedom completely. Buffy may have had this trick played on her.
The argument that one should not then want to postpone death because then one defers this "gift" misses the point. Death is INEVITABLE. So, any amount of postponement has no effect on the mediation with infinity whatsoever. It's perfectly okay to say, as the guy does in `Yeoman of the Guard`, "my first choice was life, but luckily, death was my second choice." [approximate quotation] The joke in this, though, is THE JOKE.
The arguments about flying, etc. merely sidestep this fundamental mediation. For example, the "if god had meant us to fly he would have given us wings" point deals entirely within finity - if we can stand up, our head already makes it partway to the (finitely high) clouds. The actual case that would fit would be "if god had meant us to fly meta-behind the furthest reality, he would have provided transcendental apprehension".
To me, the question of death and death wishes is not squarely presented by what we so far know of Willow's action. Maybe she pulled Buffy from the Elysian Fields, or from the broad noetic uplands, or from some calm nirvana or from a sought-after nothingness. If so, she shouldn't have done so. I'm sure we will NOT find out.
The true ethical question, though, is whether Willow did what Buffy would have wanted. Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think Willow spent a great deal of time worrying about it.
Now that Buffy has received the gift of death, will she be able to make noble gestures? She has taken the journey often described in mythological literature. Orpheus looked back. Christ did not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Mortality -- boy_mercury, 09:31:18 10/09/01 Tue
I don't have that strong of an opinion about this, but I understand why Willow would try to bring her back. Numerous times in the episode Willow said that Buffy could be in some demon dimension suffering. Who knows where her spirit went when she leaped into the portal? How would Glory have gotten back into her own dimension? By jumping into the portal. Maybe a part of Buffy was brought there, leaving only her human body behind. This was not a typical death, and while I think Willow should have thought about it a little more, I don't blame her for doing what she did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Mortality -- Rufus, 14:30:24 10/09/01 Tue
At the end of Bargaining, Buffy made a choice to answer the call of Dawn. At any point she could have rejected her rebirth and committed suicide. Her sister calling to her brought her out of her confusion and she made her choice. She is not the same as us, she is the hero who answered the call to return. I still ask what knowledge or skill will return with her? Other realities have a different experience of time, so Buffy could have been on the other side for and eternity. The thing I remember is that she didn't reject this new life, she just may need time to get used to it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Mortality -- Cleanthes, 15:39:17 10/09/01 Tue
Excellent observation. I asked if Buffy would look back, but I think she looks forward by answering of Dawn's call .
Christ and Orpheus didn't inhabit the world of episodic television, so their mythical experiences don't entirely match Buffy's. There's the need for MORE, here.
Buffy would neglect her own sacrifice if she pained Dawn needlessly. The writers got it right to have Dawn be the one to pull Buffy into her rebirth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Mortality -- Kerri, 16:40:17 10/09/01 Tue
"At any point she could have rejected her rebirth and committed suicide. "
That's kind of what I meant about Buffy's ressurection being forced on her but her rebirth being accepted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Mortality -- Dedalus, 22:07:59 10/09/01 Tue
But there is something to be said about getting ahead of nature.
All these scientists curing diseases and such ... yeah, great, but for heaven's sake ... what's going to happen when our technology allows us to save everyone? The planet is already overpopulated. People have to die. If they didn't, our resources would dwindle and then be gone, and everyone would die.
And no one is talking about torturing people who want to expand knowledge. Geez.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Mortality -- change, 03:51:41 10/09/01 Tue
> A theme of Buffy has always been the necessity of mortality as part of the cycle. The death of the old(be it
> physical orpsychological death) is necessary for the new to emerge. Change is needed-death is the next part of life.
> In the Buffyverse those who defy death(vamps) are stagnent and do not grow. Death is not something the
>Buffyverse looks down on-it is natural and part of a necessary cycle.
I have never seen the "necessity of mortality" as being a theme in Buffy. In the Buffyverse, vampires are dead. Even the vampires themselves say they are dead. Also, it does not appear to me that most people are made into vampires by choice. It is forced upon them. Therefore, I don't really think you can use them as an example of someone who is defying the natural order of things. The human is actually dead, and the vampire itself is really a demon.
As far as being stagnent goes, I think being dead is about as stagnent as you can get. Once you are dead there is no way to change at all.
> Bringing people back defies nature and god(if we assume there are higher powers in the buffyverse).
How do you know that? Was there an episode where the PTB said that people must die? It seems to me that there are plenty of things in the Buffyverse that are immortal or that live for extremely long periods of time, including the PTB themselves. If life was offensive to the PTB, then none of us would be alive. If extending life is immoral, then it is immoral to heal people. If bringing people back from the dead is immoral, then it is immoral to resuscitate heart attack victims, and to perform life saving treatment to trauma victims.
> It also disrespects Buffy. She is "raped." Her death was her choice. Her ressurection was not.
I do not see how you can say bring someone back to life is raping them. I don't see that at all. If any one raped her, Glory did by putting her into a situation where she had to sacrifice herself to protect her sister and save the world. Her friends simply helped her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> mortality...& choice -- anom, 19:50:15 10/10/01 Wed
"Her death was her choice. Her ressurection was not."
Yes, but does anyone think she'd have chosen to die if there'd been any other way to save Dawn & the world? And of course, from the perspective of people living in that world, it's not hell, & they probably couldn't imagine Buffy wouldn't choose to be resurrected if it were up to her. That's entirely separate from how she feels about it, of course.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ethics of Resurrection -- Solitude1056, 19:40:25 10/08/01 Mon
I make no promises about eloquence. (that's for other, more succinct folks than me.) But I can at least try to present my take on it, and let's get a convo going (natch).
(1) Willow is playing god by exercising the power of life and death... [but] Playing god is evil when you kill or hurt people, not when you heal them or create life.
Yeah. But when the person's been dead for three months? We're not talking an immediate revival here. We're talking dead and rotting in the grave. A doctor can bring someone back from the edge of death. Beyond death? Only in fiction.
(2) Willow did this without Buffy's consent... [but] If someone's heart stops, Doctors do not ask for the victim's consent to try to resuscitate them. The only time consent for such a thing is asked is if the patient is terminally ill and resuscitating them will simply prolong their suffering.
I'm not sure this is an appropriate analogy. If someone commits suicide, and a doctor revives the person, I personally consider that somehow wrong. No, I can't articulate why, but something inside me considers that a violation of the person's clear intent. It may not be an immoral act to revive the person, perhaps, but to me it certainly seems disrespectful, not to mention selfish on the part of the reviver.
When it comes to consent, there was no implied intention on Buffy's part that reviving her - in any way - would be okay. She'd already stated her opinion on that issue when Dawn attempted to raise their mother from the dead. Buffy was clearly against it. How could one then assume that Buffy would be so hypocritical as to hope for, or approve of, such an exception for herself?
(3) Willow has diminished the value of Buffy's sacrifice, [but] She knew that she was going to die, and she had no reason to think Willow was going to resurrect her. The point being that she willingly sacrificed her life. Being brought back from the dead does not change any of that.
Well, granted. I don't think coming back diminishes Buffy's own death - I think it diminishes those who brought her back. In being party to such, they've revealed themselves as somehow disrespectful of the fact that death is something everyone goes through. Anya, after Joyce's death, seemed to be the only one who "got" that notion of life and death being part and counterpart.
(4) Willow has taken away Buffy's reward (going to Heaven) for her sacrifice... [this argument] implies that Buffy sacrificed herself to get a ticket into heaven. Rewards and punishments are not the reason why people should act ethically.
Well, uh, can't really argue either way on this one, since it sort of assumes that the arguer or arguee are christian. And I wasn't aware that this was one of the argument summaries of why it-was-wrong. But it does seem to me that if someone's essence has moved on, in the greater circle of things, then jerking them back to this place and time just because you can't learn to live without them is an awfully selfish thing to do, no matter what you believe in. Heaven, hell, nirvana, purgatory, whatever.
Willow's primary argument boils down to this, IMO: she's gone, and I don't want her to be gone. Well, guess what, that argument just isn't good enough. Willow was refusing to do the very thing that Buffy had requested: live. Angel, Cordelia, Dawn, Spike, Anya, and Tara were trying to move along, and even Xander in his own way however much slower. But Willow was having none of it. She was living only for bringing Buffy back. And that, to me, is where Willow was going wrong. It was as if she was crying out to Buffy, "you can make your sacrifice, but how dare you leave me here on my own! you have to come back!" Buffy was able to make her sacrifice with the certainty and trust that her friends could carry on. Willow reneged on that, and betrayed Buffy's trust and last words.
Like I said, not too articulate right now, but that's the gist of it. Maybe someone else will come along and once again say it better than I... ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ethics of Resurrection -- OnM, 19:54:10 10/08/01 Mon
I can go either way on this, it all really comes down to intent, and as the primary instigator of Buffy's resurrection, accurately determining Willow's true intent is the dilemma here.
Willow claims that Buffy may be suffering in some hell-dimension somewhere, and if true, that could provide a valid reason to rescue her. But we seem to be presented with this information in such a way as to question whether Willow really believes this to be true, or is simply trying to provide a 'rational' reason for doing what otherwise is a highly questionable act.
I do agree that in no way is Buffy herself 'diminished' by the act of being resurrected, and that any such diminishment, if present at all, would be directed to those who raised her from the grave.
Tough one. Right now as I type, the shooting script is printing out, I'm sure it will be interesting reading (as always), and perhaps shed some light on some of these questions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ethics of Resurrection -- change, 04:17:16 10/09/01 Tue
> But when the person's been dead for three months? We're not talking an immediate revival here. We're talking dead
> and rotting in the grave. A doctor can bring someone back from the edge of death. Beyond death? Only in fiction.
I don't see how time makes any difference here. Hypothermia victims have been brought back after being clinicly dead for 30 or so minutes (I've heard anyway). I don't want to get all science fictiony, but a hundred years or so from now it may well be possible to bring people back who have been very dead for a long time. I don't think you can say that it is immoral to bring someone back who has been dead for X amount of time. The question is, is it immoral to bring someone back under any circumstances. I think that in an situation like Buffy where she has not had the oppertunity to lead a full life, it okay to bring her back. It's the same as trying to save the life of a child. Buffy has not had a chance to lead a full life, she was forced to sacrifice her life to save others, and if she can be brought back, she should be.
> If someone commits suicide, and a doctor revives the person, I personally consider that somehow wrong.
Actually I posted an opinion on this board right after the Gift suggesting that Buffy's sacrifice was suicide. I was shot down. I think you guys are right. It wasn't suicide, it was a nobel act of sacrifice to save the world.
> When it comes to consent, there was no implied intention on Buffy's part that reviving her - in any way - would be
> okay.
Buffy never had the chance to even consider the option. Dawn's spell was creating a zombie. Obviously that was horrible. However, Willow's spell brought Buffy back alive and whole. Buffy had no way to know that this was possible and so no way to give her consent. However, I have a hard time believing that she wouldn't have consented to this if she known it was an option.
> I think it diminishes those who brought her back.
I can see how you may feel that Willow may have brought Buffy back for the wrong reasons. However, I really don't see how bringing life dimishes people. I think they honored their friend by risking themselves (especially Willow) in order to bring her back.
> And I wasn't aware that this was one of the argument summaries of why it-was-wrong.
It wasn't in Masquerade's summary. I put it in because it was argued in one of the other posts.
> But it does seem to me that if someone's essence has moved on, in the greater circle of things, then jerking
> them back to this place and time just because you can't learn to live without them is an awfully selfish thing to
> do, no matter what you believe in. Heaven, hell, nirvana, purgatory, whatever.
How do you know that she's moved on? How do you know that their is anything after death? In the Buffyverse so far, Angel and Darla have both been resurrected. Neither of them seemed to have had any memory of an afterlife. It appears that when you die in the Buffyverse, you die. If you go to Heaven or Hell or whatever, you do so long after you die.
> Willow ... betrayed Buffy's trust and last words.
Willow brought her friend back from the dead. Remember that Buffy did not commit suicide. Buffy was faced with making a choice. She could (1) let the world be devastated by an appocolypse, (2) watch her sister die, or (3) save the world and her sister by sacrificing herself. She chose to sacrifice herself. However, that does not mean that she wanted to die. She simply chose the best of three terrible choices. By doing this, she saved Willow and the scoobies. I think it would be their responsibility to bring her back if they could.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Living Will & DNR analogy -- Solitude1056, 21:27:32 10/08/01 Mon
Ok, further:
"Playing god" seems to be a specious argument, now that I think about it. We kill, and give birth, on a regular basis. Life and death are human actions, both the giving and receiving. A better analogy, on second thought, might be that of a patient who enters the hospital with a DNR order ("do not recessitate" or however it's spelt) or a Living Will. The question, then, is whether Willow was aware of Buffy's perspective on what Dawn did (and whether she was even aware that Dawn's attempt was successful). If Willow was aware of Buffy's DNR (in this case, do not resurrect?) attitude about death, then she did, in fact, act much like a doctor who revives a patient despite the patient's clear intentions otherwise.
The only person who could say either way is Dawn, and Willow clearly does not want to involve Dawn in the resurrection. Whether this is because she knows (and does not want to admit) that Buffy would consider herself a DNR, or because she simply doesn't want to involve Dawn, is hard to tell. No, Buffy cannot "give" her consent to be resurrected, but in that case, it's up to the doctor (Willow) to research as best she can to determine if a DNR or DNR-like attitude was present on the part of Buffy. It doesn't seem to me that Willow did this, which means she's akin to a doctor who doesn't ask whether a patient has a Living Will, but instead revives first and asks later (if at all).
I'm not sure if this would be moral or immoral, since I'm not real big on morality in the first place. But it does seem to me to be selfish, in Willow's case, as well as unethical use of the powers at her disposal. To throw an additional ethical loop in the medical analogy: yes, a doctor is sworn to protect and uphold life, and has the ability to do so. But if a Jehovah's Witness is bleeding to death in the OR, does the doctor respect the JW's religious beliefs (JW have an injunction against accepting blood products such as transfusions), or does the doctor decide that s/he has the "power" to override the person's religious beliefs and give the transfusion anyway? In some ways, that's what I meant by the idea of reviving a suicide: can someone else really ever know whether a suicide is truly suffering, or whether it's "all in his/her head" and therefore negligent in comparison to the primary objective of keeping the person alive?
What's that quote again? "You were so busy thinking about how you could, that you forgot to ask whether you should," or some such...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Not eloquent? Hunh! -- Marie, 01:53:53 10/09/01 Tue
Sounds pretty eloquent to me. Got me thinking, as all the good posters here do. And what would you do? I thought to myself. For instance, suicide. If my son was 16, 17, say, and tried to kill himself because he thought he'd failed his exams and couldn't face me? Would I want the doctors to try and get him back. Bloody right I would.
But if that same son was dying of an agonising disease with no hope of a cure, and decided to end his life with dignity? I'd be so torn, I'd be insane. But I hope I would be able to say 'let him go'.
So I can't judge the morals of Willow, really. I can understand the pain of someone losing a dear friend and wanting her back. Would she even see it as denigrating Buffy's noble sacrifice? Is she thinking "OK. She made a sacrifice, but now Glory's gone, the portal's closed, Dawn's safe - I can bring her back. She can wake up and see blue skies again. Be with her family. Nothing wrong with that."?
I think she means only good. She'll have to argue the ethics of her actions with her god, whoever or whatever that may be, when the time comes. And, of course, Buffy herself.
Always consequences.
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Living Will & DNR analogy -- change, 04:26:03 10/09/01 Tue
> A better analogy, on second thought, might be that of a patient who enters the hospital with a DNR order ("do not
> recessitate" or however it's spelt) or a Living Will. The question, then, is whether Willow was aware of Buffy's
> perspective on what Dawn did (and whether she was even aware that Dawn's attempt was successful).
I don't remember exactly what Buffy said in Forever about this. However, Dawn was raising a zombie. Doc even told her as much. Willow, on the other hand, brought Buffy back alive and whole.
Secondly, Joyce died of natural causes. Buffy sacrificed herself because if she didn't Dawn would die, or millions of innocent people would die.
So, I don't think you can really compare Dawn's zombification of Joyce with Willow's resurrection of Buffy. Their deaths occurred under different circumstances and their revivals were different too.
Even if Buffy did say that bringing back Joyce was wrong (I really don't remember exactly what she said), Joyce was bring brought back as a zombie. I think Buffy had to know that because up to now, that's how magic has worked in the Buffyverse. So, obviously she would be horrified by it. The idea of bringing someone back alive and whole is new to Bargaining.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Living Will & DNR analogy (spoilers for forever) -- Solitude1056, 06:13:02 10/09/01 Tue
I don't remember exactly what Buffy said in Forever about this. However, Dawn was raising a zombie. Doc even told her as much. Willow, on the other hand, brought Buffy back alive and whole.
Well, let's see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn bolts down the stairs, heading for the door - but Buffy, who still holds Joyce's picture, is right on her heels. She grabs Dawn before she can reach the door and they move into the living room as they fight.
BUFFY
You have no idea what you're messing with! Who knows what you actually raised - what's going to come through that door-
DAWN
I know. It'll be her-
BUFFY
No. Tara told me these spells go bad all the time. People come back wrong-
DAWN
She won't. He told me. Her DNA-
BUFFY
Who told you? Who helped you?!
DAWN
Nobody! Now let me go-
BUFFY
You have to stop it, reverse it-
DAWN
No!
BUFFY
Dawn. You know this is wrong. You know you can't let this happen. Not to Mom.
[...]
ANOTHER KNOCK
ON DAWN
Who now looks afraid and uncertain. This doesn't feel right. Everything Buffy said is sinking in. This is someplace they shouldn't go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what you're saying is that if a patient has a DNR-attitude, that because the patient has assumed that DNR equals "brought back incomplete or still suffering" that the doctor can ignore this DNR if the doctor is somehow positive that the patient will be brought back "alive and whole"? Given that Willow didn't have any empirical evidence that this was true, or even any empirical evidence that the revivification would even work in the first place, I find this comparison somewhat murky. She's still no better than the doctor who ignores the patient's DNR intentions with bias towards her own intentions.
And lastly, I'd say right now there's a bit to be argued about that whole "alive and well" perspective. Buffy may've climbed her way out of the grave and that might be for some of the trauma, but she also ended up on the tower, contemplating - what? repeating her original performance? staying there until the tower collapsed and inadvertantly repeating it anyway? Hello. Alive, yes, but her behavior and reactions would indicate a new definition of "well," in my book. Her body parts may not have been falling off, but the mind can take damage that the body doesn't always show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Living Will & DNR analogy (spoilers for forever) -- change, 09:48:25 10/09/01 Tue
> So what you're saying is that if a patient has a DNR-attitude, that because the patient has assumed that DNR
> equals "brought back incomplete or still suffering" that the doctor can ignore this DNR if the doctor is somehow
> positive that the patient will be brought back "alive and whole"?
Actually, yes. I think its okay for the doctor (or in this case Willow) to override a victim's DNR if the doctor believes that the victim was missinformed about possible bad effects of being revived. For example, suppose someone is having brain surgery. Suppose their doctor tells them that the nature of the surgery is such that if the patient's heart stops it means that severe brain damage has occurred and the patient asked the doctor not to revive them in this case. If their heart does stop, but the doctor is pretty sure that it wasn't caused by brain damage, then I think the doctor should override the DNR and revive them.
A similar thing applies to Buffy. When Buffy said that "Tara told me these spells go bad all the time. People come back wrong-" it sounds to me like she was talking about a zombie which is what Dawn was raising. Well I wouldn't want to be brought back as a zombie either. However, Buffy died under special circumstances (death by mystic energy) that allowed Willow to bring her back as a person. Also note that the spell Willow used is quite different than the one Dawn used. In this case, if Willow is pretty sure that she can bring back Buffy whole, then she should ignore Buffy's request not to be brought back and do what she thinks is right and possible.
Just to clarify a few things, I'm assuming that Buffy didn't want to bring her mom back as a zombie. She says "Tara told me these spells go bad all the time. People come back wrong-". When she says that "You know this is wrong. You know you can't let this happen. Not to Mom.", I am taking that to mean that she feels its wrong to bring back her mom as a zombie, or to take the chance that she will be brought back "wrong". I don't get the feeling that she necessarily has a religious conviction against it. In fact, I don't think that Buffy has been protrayed as being religous at all. If she had expressed a religious (or some other deeply held) belief against it, then I think Willow should honor her wishes and let her stay dead. I just don't get that from the dialog you quoted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> joyce not a zombie -- anom, 20:46:46 10/10/01 Wed
"However, Dawn was raising a zombie. Doc even told her as much."
No she wasn't & no he didn't. Remember Spike found her at Joyce's grave & told her if she was doing (or not doing)...um, don't remember what exactly, but if she was (or wasn't), then they'd be talking zombie. He took her to Doc to avoid bringing Joyce back as a zombie. Doc did warn her that if anything went wrong w/the spell, the Joyce who'd be raised wouldn't be what she'd been in life, but didn't get specific about how she'd be "off," & certainly didn't say the spell he gave her would result in a zombie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> you asked (sp.) -- anom, 20:15:30 10/10/01 Wed
Well, sorta; that's how I interpret "(or however...)." It's "resuscitate."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Why are you against Willow? -- change, 10:18:02 10/09/01 Tue
Another thing that I've noticed in some of the posts about resurrecting Buffy is that many people assume that Willow did it for selfish reasons. They believe that Willow simply refused to accept that Buffy died and resurrected her to get her friend back. I don't think you can really assume this either.
The show hasn't really gone into depth on Willow's reasons for resurrecting Buffy. However, I can see some good reasons for doing it. Look at season five from Willow's point of. First, Buffy's mom is diagnosed with a brain tumor. Then Buffy finds out that Dawn is not really her sister. Instead, she finds out that her family and her memories of it have been manipulated, and her life is fiction (well you know what I mean). She has been made into a pawn in someone else's game. As the year progresses, it becomes apparent that Buffy has to fight a god who she has no chance of beating in a fair fight. Then she loses her boyfriend just as she finds out she is truely in love with him. Then her mother dies. Buffy is left to take care of Dawn by herself. Her father does not come to the funeral and does not even return her calls. Dawn is her only family. A few weeks later the school principle calls Buffy in and tells her that they may be taking Dawn away from her. Buffy is forced to drop out of college (give up her future) to stay home and take care of Dawn. Buffy finally gives up trying to fight Glory and tries to run. However, she is attacked, and Giles (the closest thing she has to a father) is seriously wounded and close to death. She turns to one of her friends to help Giles, but he betrays her to Glory. Glory takes Dawn, and slaughters a couple dozen people. Buffy finally just gives up and goes catatonic. Willow has to mentally put her back together again. Then Buffy has to fight Glory to save the World, a few hours after having been in a catatonic state. She sacrifices herself to save the world. In short, Willow has watched as her best friend's life has slowly turned into a living hell, and then watched as her best friend died when she was only 20 years old.
In addition, while Buffy is fighting to save the world and needs all the help she can get, Willow is instead focusing on saving Tara. Willow, who knows that she is the only one in the group who has ever hurt Glory, and who Buffy has told her is her 'big gun' is not focusing on helping Buffy.
So Buffy's last year was hell, she dies trying to save her sister and her friends, and Willow (to some degree) was not there fully to help her. Buffy was only 20 years old, never had a chance to live a full life, get married, and have kids.
Now, Willow finds a way to bring Buffy back. The cost (that we know of so far) is that Willow will have to endure a set of painful tests. If you were Willow wouldn't you try to bring back your friend to give her back her life? Wouldn't you feel a debt to Buffy? Wouldn't you want to suffer through the tests for your friend? Wouldn't you feel obligated to try? I know that some of you will say that guilt is a bad reason for doing things. However, doing things out of guilt can also mean trying to make things right, and trying to correct (what may be perceived as) mistakes.
I know there is speculation that Willow will turn evil later on, but I don't think she has yet. She is trying to help her friend, and trying to make up for not being there when Buffy needed her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> So is Angel the selfish one, in that case, for doing nothing but living? -- Solitude1056, 11:03:56 10/09/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: So is Angel the selfish one, in that case, for doing nothing but living? -- change, 16:48:40 10/09/01 Tue
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I don't think Angel could bring Buffy back. Darla was still alive when he tried to save her. I don't think Angel is anymore selfish than Xander or Anya. There's just nothing he can do. There's also the issue of there being no more cross overs between the two shows.
I'm getting the impression that I've pissed you off somehow. I didn't mean to. I'm just presenting an alternative point of view, which is what I think I think people do on this board. If I seem to argue it strongly, that's just the way I prefer to write it. I don't mean to attack other people. If I've really offended you, please accept my humble apologies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> uhm... -- Solitude1056, 18:43:28 10/09/01 Tue
Naw, just trying to turn the question around, since we have two different approaches: Angel's (keep living), and Willow's (put life on hold). And yeah, there was some question about Angel having the means to bring Buffy back after his one shot with Darla was negated. Several folks wondered if he could go back & say, "okay, this time, bring Buffy back, give her a second chance, since I went through that and you didn't do it, so you owe me" or some such... The whole question of ethics and death is a pretty sticky one, anyway, so it's no surprise that we couldn't come up with a solution where major philosophers have been wrangling about it for years, if not decades or centuries... but at least we can have fun trying!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why are you against Willow? Excellent Points Change! -- vulpes, 02:37:44 10/11/01 Thu
I would have to say that Willow's innocence was also sacrificed in order to bring Buffy back. And the demon she 'mothered' came to her and Tara the night after, screaming the fawn's murder, "Did you slit it's throat, did you pet it's head!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why are you against Willow? -- Cygnus, 10:22:00 10/11/01 Thu
Because her reasons feel like rationalisations. Take a look at how Willow deals with loss, she doesn't. When Oz left her she simply could not deal and eventually turned to magic to get rid of her pain (and we all know how that turned out). I'm sad to say this but Willow couldn't deal with losing her best friend and again turned to magic to solve her "problem", and if that meant resurrecting her friend well so be it.
The really interesting bit comes with how Willow and the SG deal with Buffy's revelation (It's going to get out). Personally I think that the SG will make Willow the scapegoat for their guilt and to Willow that's going to look like a big betrayal and remember the last time she felt betrayed by someone close to her. As someone on the board has already said "Minimum Safe Distance"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> This changes nothing -- change, 03:15:13 10/10/01 Wed
In case you're wondering if last night's episode changed my mind on this, the answer is no. This is the first time that heaven has been mentioned in the Buffyverse. In fact, when Angel got his soul back, and when Darla was resurrected, neither of them seemed to remember anything about the afterlife. So, with the information Willow had, she had no way of knowing that Buffy was in heaven, or that there even was an afterlife for humans. Given that, I still think she acted morally.
If Buffy decides to let people know about her afterlife, then that would change things. It would be immoral to bring people back if you knew that they could be in heaven, and that they would find this world to be hell after experiencing heaven.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ethics of Resurrection -- bible belt, 16:30:44 10/11/01 Thu
I don’t really have anything intelligent to add to this discussion except to say that I’m with change on this. I enjoyed reading everyone’s arguments and they are all good.
OnM said that it comes down to intent. I agree with that too. I do have a question about ignorance and morality. I f you do something wrong out of ignorance, is that immoral?
This question may have been addressed and I just completely missed it. It’s not a rhetorical question, I would just like to know, if someone wants to try and enlighten me before this thread is gone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ethics of Resurrection -- Marie, 01:20:59 10/12/01 Fri
If you do something wrong out of ignorance, is that immoral?
Blimey, I hope not! If that were true, I'd be one of the most immoral people on the planet! (And I don't think I am, honestly!).
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Ethics of Resurrection -- bb, 12:39:37 10/12/01 Fri
Yeah, I would be unredeemable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have to admit, they do have a point -- advocate, 22:27:43 10/08/01 Mon
I mean here Gunn is, hanging out in LA's version of "Rick's Bar" (Casabanca), in the midst of some of the most slimmy creatures in LA. What is he doing hanging with such lowlife.
And his old friends, they were just fighting the war. I have often wondered why he had abandoned them. When he first got together it was more like a partnership. He helped Angel Investigations with their projects, and they help him in protecting his friends. But somewhere along the line THEIR missions always got priority, and the problems that his friends where facing came secondary. I was hoping this season, Angel Investigation would start helping Gunn in his original mission again, but unfortunately after this, it doesn't look like he will be able to reconnect with his old group.
Gunn and Angel came to a real understanding tonight (perhaps they always had it). One of mutual respect. Angel trusts Gunn more than anyone else at Angel Investigations. Gunn hasn't forgotten what Angel is, so Angel can trust him to do the right thing if that is ever needed.
I understand why Wesley acted like he did, since as "boss" he has a crew to protect. But Gunn was going to tell him. So I hope that Wesley realizes the how much it has cost Gunn to remain on their team.
Angel investigations can trust in Gunn. My question is can Gunn trust in angel investigations? I don't believe they have shown him much good faith.
Fred really shown through tonight. She can really handle herself in difficult situations. She is a survivor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: You have to admit, they do have a point -- Raven Eye, 22:52:34 10/08/01 Mon
I always have found the concept of "sanctuary" weird. You really can't pal around with your enemy.
Lately Angel Investigations has been "sleeping with the enemy" (not literally of course). To frequent a bar like that (unless they were on business) was wrong. They had lost their perspective.
They should be ashamed of taking Fred to such a place. If there was a purpose fine, but just for personal enjoyment, that was wrong.
I can understand why Gunn's old friends were confused. He really did chose Angel Investigations over them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You have to admit, they do have a point -- Raven Eye, 23:07:23 10/08/01 Mon
Lately Angel Investigations has been "sleeping with the enemy" (not literally of course).
I take that back. I forgot about Angel and Darla.
I really don't see how Angel got Darla pregnant as that is something Vampires can't do. Does anyone think that Lindsey might be the father? After all they could have had sex before she was re-vamped. And I don't know what happens when one vamps a pregnant human.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> What the hell(s)?! -- Ryuei, 10:12:48 10/09/01 Tue
Good point about Fred. She is agoraphobic because of living in a demon dimension - so to cure her they take her to a demon bar?!?! What the hell(s)?!
Of course, it was very convenient for the sake of the plot and character development, but still - that is the last place on earth (besides Sunnydale) where Cordy should have taken Fred.
Of course it could be argued that they wanted her to get an aura reading from Lorne - but I would argue that it wasn't necessary and did more harm than good in brining her there.
As for the concept of a "Sanctuary" and hanging out with demons, I have no problem with that. Caritas is a neutral zone and the best place to get to "know the enemy" and also to realize that not many demons are just extra-dimensionals and not necessarily baby-eaters or blood-drinker or gaint praying mantis creatures (of course some are though). And for those who are - isn't it a good thing to keep an eye on who's in town? There is a great saying that applies here: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."
Also, I like the way the demon vs. human thing created an interesting allegory for the racial and class conflicts and rhetoric here in the States.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Think about it. -- Solitude1056, 15:56:25 10/09/01 Tue
The reason, I would suspect, that Cordy took Fred to Caritas may have been for several reasons. One, to find out from the Host what might be in store for Fred. Two, Fred seems to be okay with demons 'n all, after five years - she's pretty perceptive... it seems to be humans that leave her a little confused. (Well, makes sense - you can't tell which are bad humans and which are good, unlike demons who are usually pretty clearly demons.) And three, Caritas is a sanctuary. Fred's afraid of stuff happening, but she trusts Cordy, Wes, and Lorne... and the emphasis was probably on the idea that "nothing bad will happen here, it's a sanctuary, see, no bad things, this is a safe place." In that respect, it's a further irony that the thugs chose that particular evening to storm the gates. There goes any idea of sanctuary, especially for one as delicate as Fred (yet at the same time, one of the survivors, like Lorne).
As an additional note, I find it curious that Cordelia didn't have any cracks to make about Fred being protected by both herself and Wes (she used to take any opportunity to give Wes a bit o' grief)... and now she seems to be as protective of Fred as the rest of them. Wes in particular seems to stick close to Fred, when Angel isn't there to do it - but for some reason, based on things that Gunn's said, I think it may end up being Fred and Gunn who drift together. At least, I'd like to think so - he's as much a survivor as she is, and he's already made a few comments to her about the fact that he thinks she's attractive.
(I particularly liked their exchange when they're walking in last week's ep, I think it was, when she apologizes for the fact that he's escorting her home instead of getting to go fight with the other guys. And Gunn, using light-hearted sarcasm to flirt, says, "oh, yeah, I'd much rather be fighting with them, getting demon gunk all over me 'n stuff, than walking with a pretty girl." And Fred's response is a flustered apology, "Oh, I can't apologize enough." She completely misses the compliment, but it's the expression on Gunn's face as he realizes that she missed it that's particularly sweet and funny... like he's clueing in on just how naive she really is, after all that time on her own, but that this is an okay thing, in his book.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Think about it. -- Watcher in training., 19:26:52 10/10/01 Wed
"Fred seems to be okay with demons 'n all, after five years."
Oh yeah. I am sure she is "okay with demons". They only made her a slave and after she escaped, hunted her, forcing her to live in a cave. Only was going to kill her when they captured her as a runaway. Who wouldn't be ok with that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You have to admit, they do have a point -- Rynn, 18:54:31 10/09/01 Tue
I have to disagree about the Fred issue. Yes, she had been in a horrible demon deminsion. What better place to show her that some demons are (basicly) peaceful and also, Caritas is always violence free. Until that night anyway. I think that Cordy was trying to take Fred to a safe place. It just backfired. Anyone agree?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I do... -- VampRiley, 20:11:24 10/09/01 Tue
It's doubtful Cordy would have brought Fred there if she knew what was gonna happen.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I do... -- Raven Eye, 21:24:13 10/09/01 Tue
Not the point.
The point is, that it is a sleazy place to hang out. It reminds me of those kids in Sunnydale who to dressed like vampires and wanted to hang with the vamps.
Some think it is cool to hang with the bad. I just think associating with scum is almost tacit approval.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Whoops, there ya go with the "scum" thing again... -- Wisewoman, 21:39:25 10/09/01 Tue
You don't seem to be making any distinction between the harmless demons, and the evil ones. Do you really think that Gio and the rest of Gunn's gang were justified in killing all types of demons, just because they were demons?
Does their behaviour make absolutely no difference to you? Should they all die, are they all scum, just because they're different?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Whoops, there ya go with the "scum" thing again... -- Raven Eye, 21:53:36 10/09/01 Tue
Please.
They were killed because they were the enemy.
Gunn's friends didn't know there were good Demons. Gunn should have told them. Instead he abandoned them.
Angel has killed several Demons in friendly fire incidents. If a 200 year old vampire doesn't know the difference, how can you expect Gunn's friends to?
Caritas harbors evil Demons, yet Angel Investigations hangs out there. I can understand them going to the lounge for information, but that wasn't what Cordy and Wesley brought Fred there for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Whoops, there ya go with the "scum" thing again... -- VampRiley, 09:10:07 10/10/01 Wed
Gunn's friends didn't know there were good Demons. Gunn should have told them. Instead he abandoned them.
Angel has killed several Demons in friendly fire incidents. If a 200 year old vampire doesn't know the difference, how can you expect Gunn's friends to?
When Angel did that, those were accidents. Gunn's old crew was going after anything that wasn't Human. Aside from pity, I thought Gunn's old crew was pathetic, especially Gio. Once Lorne turned things back to him and his past, he turned into this pathetic thing who tried to find strength in lashing out. To be the loudest one. When Fred turned his crossbow back on him, again he becomes pathetic. He's trying to find strength from subjugating others istead of strength from within.
And beyond getting Fred out into the world again, we don't really know why they were there, if anything else.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Whoops, there ya go with the "scum" thing again... -- Raven Eye, 18:54:43 10/10/01 Wed
"When Angel did that, those were accidents."
No they weren't. He meant to fight them. He just didn't realize that they were on the same side. Sad case of friendly fire. You can try to minimize it, and you should try to of course, but such incidents will still happen. So some extent it's unavoidable.
Same thing happened with Gunn's friends. They didn't know that these creatures were not evil. Just like Angel didn't know.
Gio had a problem with Gunn, and so let that get in the way of the mission. As for the others, I thought they handled themselves well. Took out quite few baddies at Caritas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Whoops, there ya go with the "scum" thing again... -- VampRiley, 20:14:18 10/10/01 Wed
No they weren't. He meant to fight them. He just didn't realize that they were on the same side.
That's what I meant.
Sad case of friendly fire. You can try to minimize it, and you should try to of course, but such incidents will still happen. So some extent it's unavoidable.
We agree on something. Huh. Imagine that.
Gio had a problem with Gunn, and so let that get in the way of the mission. As for the others, I thought they handled themselves well. Took out quite few baddies at Caritas.
Again with the assumptions. Maybe that Vamp that got dusted was like Spike. I'm not saying he was, but the point is you don't know. None of us knows. The Vamp may have been in the bar, just trying to relax. He wasn't trying to kill anyone. And we know absolutely nothing about any of the other Demons, if some were even Demons.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Whoops, there ya go with the "scum" thing again... -- Raven Eye, 21:04:23 10/10/01 Wed
"Again with the assumptions. Maybe that Vamp that got dusted was like Spike."
Score one for the good guys.
"The Vamp may have been in the bar, just trying to relax. He wasn't trying to kill anyone."
Have we all forgotten what vampires are? Angel being the exception.
Vampires, we do still slay them don't we?
-Charles Gunn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What about Spike? -- VampRiley, 06:03:00 10/11/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What about Spike? -- Raven Eye, 22:16:31 10/11/01 Thu
Souless Demon.
Sure he is ok right now, but he could turn in a moments notice.
Anyway, Spike and Angel are the exception. All other vamps are evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I do... -- celticross, 22:27:14 10/09/01 Tue
Does the fact that Caritas is a demon bar make it sleazy? Looks like a pretty nice place to me...decent drinks, fun karoke, snappily dressed Host...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I do... -- Raven Eye, 22:40:22 10/09/01 Tue
"Does the fact that Caritas is a demon bar make it sleazy?"
Yes.
"Looks like a pretty nice place to me...decent drinks, fun karoke, snappily dressed Host..."
I was referring to the patrons.
I think those who want to hob-knob with evil (the gangster mystique) are scum in there own right. For them evil is just another way of living (until the violence effects them personally).
I am sure Al Capone had lots of groupies. Come to his speak easy. All are welcome. Great entertainment, girls and drinks. I am sure it was the place to be if you wanted to be on the top of the social scene in Chicago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> So do you think that anything associated with demons are bad? -- VampRiley, 09:14:12 10/10/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> How many people here missed the point of this episode? -- Traveler, 21:04:30 10/10/01 Wed
It has been specifically stated in previous episodes that not all demons are evil. Angel himself said it, and we have seen evidence that it is true. Given that fact, saying that the bar is sleazy or evil simply because there are demons in it is the same as saying a place is sleazy or evil because there are blacks in it. Or Jews. Gunn's old gang was killing sentient beings because of what they looked like, not because of anything they had done. Not only that, but they were having fun doing it. How were they any different from the souless vampires they hunted?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How many people here missed the point of this episode? -- Raven Eye, 21:25:27 10/10/01 Wed
Since you opened up the analogy here I feel justified in going along with it.
So Wisewoman, and Solitude just remember that.
Caritas always reminded me of like it was a place in occupied France where all the Nazi Brass hanged out. At one table you might see a leading Gestopo agent, another a few Generals with their girlfriends (if their wives back in Germany knew), and at another table some members of the SS. All just kicking back laughing and enjoying themselves after a hard day at work.
Then one day the Resistance bombs the place, killing a bunch of these people.
To that I would say VIVA LA RESISTANCE!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: How many people here missed the point of this episode? -- Shaglio, 11:30:35 10/11/01 Thu
"Caritas always reminded me of like it was a place in occupied France where all the Nazi Brass hanged out. At one table you might see a leading Gestopo agent, another a few Generals with their girlfriends (if their wives back in Germany knew), and at another table some members of the SS. All just kicking back laughing and enjoying themselves after a hard day at work."
This analogy doesn't quite hold up. You are comparing ALL demons to ONE particularly cruel group of humans. In or to make the analogy equal, you would have to compare ALL demons to ALL humans or ONE particularly cruel group of demons to ONE particularly cruel group of humans.
It is quite evident that not all demons are sleazy, murderous, child-eating scum. Lorne, for one, seems like a very pleasant demon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Please dismiss my post above -- Shaglio, 12:13:17 10/11/01 Thu
After continuing to read further on down this thread, I do not wish to participate in it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: How many people here missed the point of this episode? -- Raven Eye, 23:28:29 10/11/01 Thu
"Lorne, for one, seems like a very pleasant demon."
He is amoral. He doesn't like to take sides.
And just because you are pleasant, doesn't mean you aren't evil. Ted Bundy was a very pleasant guy.
But again, I see Lorne as neutral to a fault. And you can't be neutral in the face of evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: You have to admit, they do have a point -- Javoher, 23:54:54 10/08/01 Mon
Sorry, I'm not buying that. Gunn seems to have a clear idea of what "the mission" isn't - that as murky as it can get, it isn't about random killing and never was. It was about fighting back, survival, and war in the pursuit of peace. Gunn's old crew got some real firepower and used it not to fight back but to hunt. (I've often wondered why guns aren't shown more often.) They made the fatal mistake of lumping all those who aren't "us" as "them" and therefore evil. Joss made it easy for us.
Buffy, early last season, would rise from her bed and go out not to patrol but to hunt. It bothered her a great deal. She took it as a sign of her own darkness. Hunting was a fun time for these guys, and killing (obliterating) demons was a way of triumphing over evil, shining the light into darkness. The irony is that these guys missed the whole point that hunters of demons deal death, which makes them not much different than their targets. If the targets are evil, and the hunters aren't much different, well then...
Gunn perhaps needed to move on after the death of his sister. Perhaps he found his old way of life pointless, perhaps he found he no longer had a taste for leadership, perhaps he wanted a better life than living in an underground hideout begging for handouts. Remember, Angel Investigations gives him a salary to do something he does very well. They must get paying clients once in a while, you'd think.
And as for hanging out in Caritas...well, there's all sorts of possibilities. It's a great place to gain information. It's a safe house, no one's going to get hurt. It's run by a friend of theirs. It offers a service you can't get anywhere else in LA.
Finally, I'm with Wesley. He's not being a prick as much as he's thinking of the good of the group over the good of an individual in the group. He was pretty harsh, but he does call it straight up and is right most of the time.
The only thing that puzzles me is Angel. Not that he wasn't upset that Gunn didn't want to be his friend - that made sense. Not that he told Gunn that he wouldn't trust him until Gunn could see a time he needed to kill Angel and then did it - that made perfect sense by itself. The part I didn't get is that Angel thought Gunn wouldn't kill him in a heartbeat if necessary. That he would hesitate. And I guess that goes to Gunn's behavior with his former crew. There's intense loyalty in Gunn and betrayal isn't easy at all for him. Maybe Angel felt that if Gunn were confronted by Angelus he would hesitate, confused and unwilling to betray Angel, and that would get him and everyone else around him killed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You have to admit, they do have a point -- Raven Eye, 06:24:23 10/09/01 Tue
"...old crew got some real firepower and used it not to fight back but to hunt."
You mean to get them before they get us. I call that a preemptive strike.
Why wait unit someone is killed? Then it's too late (at least for the one killed).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: You have to admit, they do have a point **Spoilers** -- Rendyl, 06:35:04 10/09/01 Tue
The 'old crew' was not defending themselves, they were committing murder. Many of the demons they targeted and killed were non-violent. The series is not stuck in season 1 Buffy, where every demon was evil incarnate and was killed without thought. We have been shown in episode after episode that evil is not always ugly and that the 'white hats' are not always human.
I thought the episode was extremely timely given recent real world events.
Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: You have to admit, they do have a point **Spoilers** -- Raven Eye, 21:36:00 10/09/01 Tue
Well I have other thoughts about the protrayal of Gunn's friends, which I choose not to share with the board.
But nonetheless, they were acting out of self defense. Gunn has practically abandoned them after accepting his position with Angel Investigation. What are they supposed to do? Wait until another one of them are killed?
They were fighting evil, just like the scooby gang does, just like the initiative did (or does as I guess they are still around somewhere), and just like Angel Investigation does. But somehow it is wrong for Gunn's friends.
We all like Lorne (the Host) because he has done some favors for Angel Investigations. But there is no getting around what he does for a living. He harbors evil creatures at his lounge. We have even gotten indications in the past that he helps them. He likes to play the neutral act. He likes to be Switzerland.
Well Rick (in Casabanca) tried that, but in the end he had to take sides. There can be no neutrality in the war against evil.
It makes sense for them to attack the lounge. You attack the enemy where and when they least suspect it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Raven Eye, are you sure you're just talking about Angel here? -- Wisewoman, 21:44:46 10/09/01 Tue
There can be no neutrality in the war against evil.
It makes sense for them to attack the lounge. You attack the enemy where and when they least suspect it.
Forgive me if I'm getting the wrong impression, but it seems your comments refer to more than just what we saw in that Angel episode. Perhaps it would be clearer to me if you chose to share your "other thoughts" about the portrayal of Gunn's friends with the board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Raven Eye, are you sure you're just talking about Angel here? -- Raven Eye, 21:55:41 10/09/01 Tue
Perhaps it would be clearer to me if you chose to share your "other thoughts" about the portrayal of Gunn's friends with the board.
I perfer not to. Just to say I think Joss has lots to answer for regarding this episode. And I am not the type to usually jump to such conclusions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Raven Eye. For you, does Demon = Evil? -- VampRiley, 16:44:25 10/10/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Raven Eye. For you, does Demon = Evil? -- Raven Eye, 19:31:06 10/10/01 Wed
Ok.
I take it back. The creatures at the lounge were model citizens. Just harmless creatures just wanting to live their lives like the rest of us. They wouldn't ever harm a human, they were just misunderstood. Why is everyone always blaming them when a baby goes missing?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay. Now your abusing sarcasm. -- VampRiley, 19:50:22 10/10/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: You have to admit, they do have a point(spoiler) -- Cleanthes, 07:56:16 10/09/01 Tue
"...old crew got some real firepower and used it not to fight back but to hunt."
You mean to get them before they get us. I call that a preemptive strike.
The morality of preemptive strikes differs from this case. There was no attempt made to find out whether an "emptive" strike might or would occur absent these attacks. Few or none of the killings of demons by Gunn's old crew qualify as preemptive.
It's even less pre-emptive when the motive isn't to prevent trouble but just to have fun. Gunn certainly understood that fun was NOT the mission.
Even from a utilitarian standpoint, Gunn's old crew killed potential allies and intelligence assets. Angel investigations will not be able to use Merl for information any more. Many truly innocent people may die as a result.
What's more, going after easy targets rather than dangerous targets is the M.O. of thugs. Idi Amin's army was always said to be only good against unarmed civilians. And that's what Gunn had seen his old crew become. Slaughtering harmless demons (or harmless civilians) teaches bad habits unbecoming of actual soldiers, lowering morale and cohesiveness in the face of real danger.
While Gunn's old crew is wasting time hunting non-dangerous types, the truly dangerous take advantage of the chaos. I thought it interesting that two of the most dangerous demons in Caritas (the child eater and the one that morphed into a huge bug) were untouched by the initial attack. Meanwhile, the murderer from Miami undermines from within. Such is the result of blind onslaught - crapulousness and failure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: You have to admit, they do have a point -- Deeva, 10:27:53 10/09/01 Tue
A pre-emptive strike that was so random that it made no sense what so ever. The clear message was that they were killing demons because all demons are bad. No distinctions between the benevolent ones and the evil ones just "They're ugly, they ooze stuff, they look & act different, they're not human so they can't be good. Kill'em."
You know as I was watching this episode, I kept thinking that the Miami guy was some sort of demon because of all his button-pushing and his evasive answer to how he ended up in Los Angeles. And when he didn't turn out to be one, I wasn't all that surprised. People can be extremely cruel and as much as I want to believe that being good is an innate thing, it's a very thin line that doesn't take much to cross over.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You have to admit, they do have a point (spoliers) -- Raven Eye, 06:43:47 10/09/01 Tue
I have much sympathy for them. I see nothing wrong with them hunting evil, and no, it doesn't make them "just like". Please.
The Host gives gives aid and comfort to evil creatures (at a price of course). We like him because he has helped out Angel and co. on several occasions so we tend to want to ignore that other side of him.
When you hang with scum, don't blame others when they start lumping you in with them.
I am resisting saying some pretty harsh things about Joss regarding this episode. Such accusations are often used rashly and unfairly, and I really don't want to analyze this episode from that standpoint.
Anyway, although Gunn's friends were misguided when they wanted him to kill Angel, I didn't really see them doing much wrong this episode. Angel Investigations has been getting way top cozy with the enemy, frequenting their bars and such. Perhaps Gunn's friends have "lost the mission", I don't think so. But by taking Fred to a seeded place like Caritas as her first social experience, I believe they have lost the mission, and are beginning not to be able to separate foe from friend
You hunt and destroy the enemy before they can hunt and destroy you. There should be no place that is "off limits". No sanctuary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: You have to admit, they do have a point (spoliers) -- VamRiley, 06:53:13 10/09/01 Tue
Everyone needs a place where they can feel safe. Where they believe they can spend some time and live a little and not always be on run, looking over their sholder. But Raven Eye, how can you say they did nothing wrong when they killed the Yarbnie demon in the sewer with the Big Gulp? Wesley says that Yarbnies are non-viloent as was Merl. They were begging for their lives before being killed. That was slaughter.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: You have to admit, they do have a point (spoliers) -- Raven Eye, 21:47:09 10/09/01 Tue
"Begging for their lives". Well Angelus would know something about that, wouldn't he. That was the best part for him. Either that or arranging the bodies for the best dramatic effect for the victim's family. Angelus sure knew how to have fun.
The point is, that these people have seen some very cruel demons in their day. You have to take it all in context.
But this all could have been avoided had Gunn not abandoned his friends, and that would have never happened had Angel Investigations been more responsive to Gunn's causes, instead of always making them secondary (finally dropping them all together).
"Everyone needs a place where they can feel safe."
I hope evil never finds a place where it can feel safe. I don't believe Hitler deserved a place to feel safe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Ah ha! Why am I not surprised? -- Wisewoman, 21:49:43 10/09/01 Tue
Somehow I knew Hitler was just lurking somewhere in the rhetoric.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> There's a point on the top of my head, but that's the only one I can find. -- Solitude1056, 21:52:42 10/09/01 Tue
Rule of debate I learned awhile back in both philosophy and politics: first person to bring up Nazis (or alternately, fascism)... loses the debate. Come on, we're savvier than that, we can find better analogies. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There's a point on the top of my head, but that's the only one I can find. -- Raven Eye, 22:04:49 10/09/01 Tue
For most of the Western World Hitler represents the ultimate evil. Some groups think they have a monopoly on the use of that analogy in debating. I refuse to give them that copyright.
But forget Hitler for a moment. It was said that everyone deserves a place they can feel safe. Really? There should be a place for those who do evil to put up their feet, relax after a good day of torturing and killing?
That's crazy.
And for a creature like the Host to just look the other way at the type of clientele that uses his establishment as long as they pay their tab. That is putting profit over principle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There's a point on the top of my head, but that's the only one I can find. -- VampRiley, 09:39:47 10/10/01 Wed
It was said that everyone deserves a place they can feel safe. Really? There should be a place for those who do evil to put up their feet, relax after a good day of torturing and killing?
I wrote that because I believe it's true. Evil or not, everyone needs a place like that. Take for example the baby eating person. We don't know why he does it (is it a he? Seems like it.) Maybe there is something is babies that his species needs to survive. Gio said that he had seen a lot of them in Miami. He implied that they were doing it for fun. Many things kill to survive. Maybe his kind does the same. Maybe not. But assuming it does becuase it is "a monster" isn't right. He might have been pretending in what he was saying to try to get the guy to kill him. He didn't seem to fear getting killed. Or at least he wasn't afraid of them. It's like Vamps and feeding. You can't say they're evil because they want and try and sometimes do feed on Humans. If that were true, then we would have to say that Humans are evil, perhaps more evil. Vamps don't raise Humans for food. They take from the general populace. Humans raise oysters for pearls and food. We raise chickens, turkey, pigs, cows, etc. for our consumption. And while I have extremely enjoyed this debate these last couple of days, I hope you, Raven Eye that is, doesn't come back with a point saying that Humans are not Demons and that Humans should be held to a different standard. What about after that? Would you feel the same way if people from other planets became a part of the show? Or those with a non-corporeal bodies?
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There's a point on the top of my head, but that's the only one I can find. -- Raven Eye, 19:02:10 10/10/01 Wed
"I wrote that because I believe it's true. Evil or not, everyone needs a place like that."
I disagree. I hope that there is no place to relax for evil. We must not give them the luxury of having places of comfort. There should be no sanctury for evil.
We must hunt out evil from wherever they hide. Every moment of their existence they should fear our justice. After what they have done to us, we must put all our effort in making sure they don't have a moment of relaxation or safety.
Evil must be fought. Or we will be destroyed. Take you choice!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Then who decides who is evil and who isn't? -- VampRiley, 20:15:51 10/10/01 Wed
Is it really "fearing our justice" or is it "fearing our mob mentality's slaughter" for those that haven't done a thing to anyone? Are you gonna be the judge of what is evil? Are you qualified? Is anyone? You want to get the ones that have done killing and torture for pleasure, that's one thing. But going after anyone that don't look like a Human...That is is flat out wrong. While history does judge a species on how it treats other members of its own race, the main thing history will judge Humanity is how Humans treat others that are not of the same species.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Then who decides who is evil and who isn't? -- Raven Eye, 21:13:05 10/10/01 Wed
We all must make that distinction.
We are not always right, but we must defend ourselves.
Gunn's people have to protect themselves, their friends, their families. They have no choice in the matter (unless you consider accepting being slaughtered a choice). It is either defend yourself, or die, and for them the will to live is too strong.
Mistakes were made. That's unfortunate. But as for the attack on the lounge, it was perfectly justified. Evil was being harbored there. The Host is an amoral creature whose only concern with his customers is if their tab is paid. The rest "isn't his business". After all he is just trying to run an establishment here.
Well evil is everyone's business. Neutrally in the face of evil isn't a viable option.
I wonder if he even cards minors?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Why resist? Let us know what you really think. -- Wisewoman, 08:29:08 10/09/01 Tue
When you hang with scum, don't blame others when they start lumping you in with them.
I am resisting saying some pretty harsh things about Joss regarding this episode. Such accusations are often used rashly and unfairly, and I really don't want to analyze this episode from that standpoint.
What standpoint are you referring to? Don't you think that Joss (actually Tim Minnear wrote the episode) was speaking allegorically about the ugliness of bigotry? About the glorification of violence as a game of "us" against "them?" In this case, "them" is anyone you can categorize as a demon, whether their behaviour is evil or harmless. In order to make that classification, without reference to behaviour, you have to refer basically to physical attributes. In other words, Merl was harmless, but he didn't look human, so it was okay to kill him. Same with the harmless demon in the sewer tunnel.
That way lies violence for it's own sake, which is chaos. And referring to any group identifiable only by it's physical attributes as "scum" is the first step along the path.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Why resist? Let us know what you really think. -- Raven Eye, 22:12:12 10/09/01 Tue
I know what I SAW,
And I know the impact of images. Tim Minnear used the storyline to cover-up what he was doing. He was doing the exact same thing, the story was supposed to be warning against.
Is there a word for that? Doing something at the same time as you accuse others of the act. Hypocrisy just doesn't seem to describe it precisely enough.
Tim Minnear better look in the mirror. If he is honest with himself, he will not like what looks back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Why resist? Let us know what you really think. -- Watcher in training., 22:57:31 10/09/01 Tue
I find people like Tim Minnear quite interesting You see them at the parties, and they try oh so carefully to protray themeselves in a correct way. Trying to say the correct things.
But in the end, they have more problems than the people who in their arrogance they like to attack in front of their friends thinking that makes them sound sophisticated and intellegent.
They are the ones with the ugly little secret about what lurks within their hearts.
Look in the mirror Tim. Be honest. Despite the act you put on for others, we know what you really believe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why resist? Let us know what you really think. -- Raven Eye, 22:01:55 10/10/01 Wed
Hypocrisy doesn't fully cover it. It is just so much more.
I know the kind of people you mean watcher in training. Tim Minnear says what he thinks he is supposed to when chatting at the parties and such. "Some of my best friends are ..." I wonder if he even realizes the condescension is so transparent. It is reflected in every syllable that he speaks.
In the end, he is the worst offender. The evil that he pretends to stand up against, is his own. He accuses others of having a problem, depending on who he is talking about they may, or quite likely may not. The problem is with him, and in the end it is through him that it comes though.
Tim is an arrogant prick. I met many like him in college. They think they are so tolerant and enlightened. In fact they are the most intolerant and unenlightened of them all.
I saw nothing enlightening in his "message". And in fact I found much within this episode to offend. It is time that we judge him as he would judge others. It's time to look within his heart, to see the ugliness within.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's enough......... -- Rufus, 22:22:11 10/10/01 Wed
I think if you wish to post you take your personal beefs with Minear somewhere else. Have an opinion about the show, but leave the personal stuff out of here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I concur... -- VampRiley, 06:00:56 10/11/01 Thu
There's no need to get personal.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Minnear and Stereotyping? -- Wisewoman, 07:57:47 10/10/01 Wed
I'm trying to figure out what you're getting at, I really am! ;o)
When you talk about Minnear doing the same thing he's warning against, are you referring to the fact that the majority of Gunn's old gang (the "bad" guys, as they were portrayed) were African-American?
Is that the point you're making? That Minnear is guilty of the same sort of stereotyping that he appears to be warning against? If so, it would be simpler if you just said that, and then we could all discuss it rationally. I think you would, indeed, have a point.
If that's not what you're saying, then I personally am at a loss to figure it out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Are you sure... -- VampRiley, 16:51:48 10/10/01 Wed
I know what I SAW
...you saw what you saw? Both BtVS and AtS can be very misleading.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Are you sure... -- Raven Eye, 19:04:53 10/10/01 Wed
Yes I am sure.
Read Wisewoman above. She pretty well sumed it up.
But I really don't want to get into that aspect of this discusion. Really I don't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Observation & Note-to-Self, WW, VR and others... -- Solitude1056, 07:13:07 10/11/01 Thu
Observation: Raising thinly veiled comments while consistently stating that one doesn't want to "get into that aspect," just sounds coy. Not to mention it seems kinda, well, non-constructive. "Here we are, on a discussion board, and I am referring to issues and then insisting I don't want to discuss them."
I have two choices when I come across this behavior. Protesting or insisting that I am supportive of the reluctant poster leaves me with the same bad taste in my mouth as when people fish for compliments.* "No, really, I really want to hear what you have to say." Or I can ignore the fishing, which is pretty much my preference. If we want to discuss a topic, then we do so; if we don't, then we don't bring it up or we raise it, acknowledge we don't want to talk about it, and then we drop it. Repeatedly mentioning it just makes it fishing.
* And the side-effect is that excessive protestations of support for a coy poster is that I've seen folks take this support as being support for their POV, and then playing the 'betrayed' card when people debate their points. It's possible to support a person's right to speak and not agree with what they're saying. It gets harder when one of the people speaking is playing games, even unintentionally.
Note to regulars: If we play along with the fishing and insist too strongly, though, we could fall into another trap. "I said I didn't want to talk about topic A, topic B, or topic C!" Curious to me, the mention of an off-limits topic is usually accompanied by more than just passing information on the poster's opinion of the topic...
Therefore: I'd suggest that we add an extra few lines to WW's and d'Herblay's guides to our board. Responses, from a single poster, that regularly continue a one-track debate without actually responding to the previous post fall into the "not really discussing stuff here" game.
In other words, if you read a post, and then read the response and you can't figure out how the response is responding to the original post and you see this is happening multiple times, including the responder quoting or repeating hirself from earlier posts in the same thread... okay. That's not discussion. That's, uh, well, a broken record.
Second Note: argumentativeness beyond the shade of polite debate, to the point of being confrontational. See First Note about lack of interactive dialogue between responder's posts and the triggering posts.
As for this thread? Was interesting, still could be. But with the games? Naw. Bored now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just trying an alternative method of identification... LOL -- Wisewoman, 08:28:31 10/11/01 Thu
Thought I'd engage this time, rather than jump to conclusions about a poster's motivation...in the long run, I might as well have jumped and just stayed quiet about it!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well said, Sol! -- Marie, 08:53:26 10/11/01 Thu
Been reading this thread with increasing disquiet. It's also disconcerting when posters are asked direct questions which require simply a yes or a no, and they give neither, but take the opportunity to repeat what they've said before, many times!
I rose politely in the club
And said "I feel a little bored;
Will someone take me to the pub?"
~G.K. Chesterton (wonder if Spike knew him!)
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Coy, yes, also an apophasis -- Cleanthes, 11:17:34 10/11/01 Thu
Observation: Raising thinly veiled comments while consistently stating that one doesn't want to "get into that aspect," just sounds coy. Not to mention it seems kinda, well, non-constructive. "Here we are, on a discussion board, and I am referring to issues and then insisting I don't want to discuss them."
This rhetorical device is called an apophasis. It's often used illegitamately, as you point out, Sol.
"If apophasis is employed to bring in irrelevant statements while it supplies a screen to hide behind, then it is not being used rightly:
I pass over the fact that Jenkins beats his wife, is an alcoholic, and sells dope to kids, because we will not allow personal matters to enter into our political discussion."
http://www.uky.edu/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~scaife/terms?file=1ahrd.html&isindex=Apophasis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ooh, my vocab word for the week... thanks, Cleanthes! ;-) -- Solitude1056, 11:25:52 10/11/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sol, I think your housemate said it best . . . -- d'Herblay, 11:52:04 10/11/01 Thu
"Please check all preconceptions at the door. They'll be here if you still want them after the show, and we won't even charge you for keeping them safe."
Applies just as well to this board as it does to the show.
I am a believer that the historical meaning of a word is a clue to the true meaning of a word; discussion is derived from the Latin for "to strike asunder, to shake apart." The preconceptions I brought to this board certainly have been shaken asunder--I simply do not believe about Buffy all that I believed three months ago. My ideas have run the gantlet, and some have emerged stronger for it. Others are now in the scrap heap. I have been able to recognize this as a gift, but some see this tearing down of their world-view as a threat. While the people who stay here see discussion as "creative destruction," trolls see just destruction. Unfortunately, that means they avoid real discussion. Fortunately, that means they won't stick around.
But until they depart, we must live with them. And I've decided that living with them must entail ignoring them. For constant iteration of one point of view is not only boring, it subverts the normal flow of this board. Several posters here end their writings with some variation of "That's my idea. Run with it." The trolls might as well end theirs with "That's my idea. Let's stay in one place with it."
And I don't come here to stand still. So, Raven Eye, c'mon, tell us what you really think . . . about Spike's cheekbones.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> dammit, he always does! ;-) When I grow up, I wanna be succinct like anom! -- Solitude1056, 12:27:10 10/11/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> that doesn't mean you think i'm grown up, does it? -- anom, 20:50:14 10/11/01 Thu
Or just distinctly succinct?...'cuz I'm not sure I'm ready to be a role model! @>)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> dunno about grown up, but succinct, yes - and I'm not the only one who's noticed. ;-) -- Solitude1056, 05:43:26 10/12/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Beyond bored... -- VampRiley, 12:42:28 10/11/01 Thu
I posted this morning, I think. And on my way to class, I came to the conclusion that I'm really bored with this thread. I've posted to Raven Eye's posts so much these last couple of days, my brain is fried. So this will be my last post for this thread.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> question re: Merl (spoiler) -- Sean, 23:35:23 10/09/01 Tue
Merl was harmless?
Do we know this? We know he was pathetic, but even pathetic demons can do great harm to humans (what was it that Glory said to Buffy - so you are stronger than humans, big wow, what isn't).
Merl was getting his information from somewhere. My guess was that he was part of it (at a low level of course).
Informants are usually people who are involved in criminal activity. Police ignore their trangressions to get at the big fish.
Merl probably commited many evil acts. He just committed them pathetically.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Then I geuss the same should be done to Humans as well... -- VampRiley, 17:03:05 10/10/01 Wed
The pathetic ones can also do great harm to Humans also.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> No sanctuary means you're a thug, not a soldier -- Greta, 09:38:24 10/09/01 Tue
Where in the episode is it clear that all or even most of the demons there were evil? In fact, the episode made it absolutely CLEAR that many of the victims were innocent of any wrongdoing. Why was the crew "misguided" only when they targeted Angel and not when they stalked and slaughtered the demon with the Super Gulp? The demon had always been non-violent; the same certainly can't be said of Angelus, or even Angel. Is it because Angel's pretty to look at?
Is sanctuary abused? Certainly. I have no doubt that real criminals cynically sought sanctuary in churches when churches still offered asylum. But an equal abuse of sanctuary would be to ignore it; because the concept of sanctuary is about RESPECT for places of peace and not polluting them by the taking of life, for whatever the reason.
Moreover, I find it interesting to consider that demons sought out Caritas knowing it to be a place where they couldn't engage in the wanton violence that as "evil" creatures would seem to be their only interest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> There is a fine line between a just cause and a......... -- Rufus, 09:54:06 10/09/01 Tue
Lynch mob. The gang had lost more than their mission they had become worse than the monsters they used to protect their part of town from. If you lose sight of why you are fighting then you can become just one more monster in the abyss. A monster has been considered someone different from us. Some of them are obvious because they can be frightening to look at. I became more frightened of the men that turned a mission into a party. Their enjoyment of the kill made them a mindless mob instead of soldiers with a just cause. This is also why they will fail. As soon as you justify killing by the simple explanation that the victim is different from us, you become just one more human monster.
There have always been places of sanctuary, demiliterized zones, refuge from the battle. Lorne made sure that people were safe from violence in the club. He didn't expect violence to come from humans.
In hunting down and killing all you "perceive" as enemies, you could be murdering the innocent and potential powerful allies....only a scared fool does that. Not every demon is evil, some are completely harmless and want nothing more to live their lives, just like we do. The only monsters I saw in the scene with the Big Gulp demon, were the supposed protectors of the innocent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: There is a fine line between a just cause and a......... -- Raven Eye, 22:23:46 10/09/01 Tue
Funny.
I saw people who were fighting not only for their lives but the lives of their families.
They have to live with the chaos every day.
They were misguided to go after certain types of demons. Guess they didn't renew their subscription to the Watcher book of the month club. They don't have quite the library that they have at Angel investigations.
Gunn abandoned them. He could have provided leadership, yet instead he went with Angel Investigations. At first it seemed that Angel Investigations was on their side, that it was willing to work with them. but then it disappeared.
But the problems didn't. And Gunn's friends were left to deal with them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Now that is a good point. -- Humanitas, 12:32:51 10/10/01 Wed
Gunn's friends were not evil (with the exception of Gio), they just "lost the mission." One of the things that kept bugging me throughout the episode was that Gunn never came out and said what the mission was. It was implied pretty strongly, though, that the mission was to fight evil, not to kill indiscriminately.
And Gunn does perhaps bear some responsibility for that. He hasn't been around for a while, and few groups can bear the loss of a strong leader without losing sight of where they're going. Their local problems continued, and they made a choice about how to deal with those problems. Unfortuately, that choice led them down a path of hatred, and was very possibly the wrong choice. Gunn already has a lot of guilt to deal with regarding his own choice to work with Angel Investigations, and I suspect that the events of this week's ep will only add to that burden. I'm looking forward to how he chooses to work through the consequenses of his decisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Now that is a good point. -- Watcher in training., 21:44:38 10/10/01 Wed
"Gunn already has a lot of guilt to deal with regarding his own choice to work with Angel Investigations, and I suspect that the events of this week's ep will only add to that burden. I'm looking forward to how he chooses to work through the consequenses of his decisions."
This episode reinforces my respect for Charles Gunn.
I have always felt that Angel Investigations haven't lived up to their end of things. I really could see Gunn walk away from them if he ever felt they went "off mission".
That is why when Wesley gave Gunn the "firing bit" I thought it was kind of lame. He isn't with Angel Investigations for the health plan.
I think a relationship based on mutual goals is just as strong, if not stonger than one based on friendship. We seem in this society to want everyone to like us. Gunn has no use for that. He feels that it is more important to be "on mission" than to worry about if people hate him or not.
Angel feels the same way. They both have that in common. They both realize that it isn't important for them to be friends. What is important is for them to be allies in the fight against evil regardless of everything else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Demons or Extra-dimensionals? -- Ryuei, 10:33:48 10/09/01 Tue
I think that what we have seen so far in the Jossverse is that the demons are actually a wide range of extra-"dimen"-sionals from various realms. Some work for the PTB (the Prio-Motu, the Chinese shop owners, Skip, etc...), some are neutral (Whistler, Lorne (?)) and many are downright evil. So not all extra-dimensionals should be considered enemies in my view.
This is just the latest in a bunch of episodes on both shows that point to the evil of humans who treat the extra-dimensionals with the same brutality that the demons treat humans. The Initiative was guilty of this, then there was the Ring episode of Angel. Angel killing the Prio Motu was another example of a how bad it is to assume.
Now it might sound like I am contradicting myself since in an earlier post I argued that it is Them or Us, kill or be killed, no quarter asked or given. I still think that - but only with respect to the demons who are out to sweep away humanity. As for those who are willing to live and let live, I say welcome as long as they leave all their old grudges and grievances at home and abide by our values and rules (I am thinking of the clan who customarily ate the brains of ex-husbands).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> My respect for Wes just keeps going up -- Ryuei, 10:19:46 10/09/01 Tue
I remembered last night how Wesley used to be a by-the-book creep who made rutheless decisions because he didn't know any better. Now he is making rutheless decisions because he sees the necessity of it. He even balances this ruthelessness with a display of understanding for the position that Gunn was in. He is turning into a good field commander in my opinion. It makes me wonder how he would be if he ever got a chance to be a Watcher in charge of a Slayer. At this point, I think he would be more than up to the task.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I second that. He got a quiet "bravo" from me last night. -- Solitude1056, 11:57:41 10/09/01 Tue
Not in the sense of "yeah, you tell him!" but in the sense of "that's a hard one to say, but you said it, and said it straight up without resentment or anger but just the facts." Wes, as a character, is definitely growing, believeably. I doubt the SG would recognize him now...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great thread guys, but please remember *SPOILER* tags!! -- Liq, 00:06:50 10/09/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: You have to admit, they do have a point (SPOILER) -- VampRiley, 06:38:34 10/09/01 Tue
I've never been comfortable with the label of someone being called a low-life just because they are a demon. This ep reminds me of things like racial profiling. It's one thing to kill someone, Demon or Non-demon, while protecting someone. But when they are sitting down in a place where they felt safe, whether Gunn's old crew knew it was a Sanctuary or not, bothers me. Beliving that if it isn't Human, it must be evil. I can't help but pity them for they way they work. This is the same reason why I still have a problem with the way Buffy and Faith acted with the nest of vamps Faith found (Bad Girl's?). I love shades of Grey. Violence solves what talking doesn't. I cheered when that Green guy bit Gio's head off. There's enough evil in the world without his kind of evil, for whatever reson he is the way he is. Maybe Miami and the girl?
I'm not convinced that Gunn and Angel have and understanding of mutual respect. I think everyone at Angel Investigations have a better understanding of each other after that episode. But I think only time will be the true teller of whether it is respect or not.
Whether he was gonna tell Wesley or not is not the issue. What is the issue is that he didn't. If they had known his old crew was acting like this, they might have been a little more prepared for what went down. And while people like Wesley, Gunn and Angel may have been able to hold their own without much in the way of external weapons, those like Fred weren't. Yes, she held the crossbow at Gio's neck and refused to keep it pointed at Angel. She may be a survivor but she doesn't seem anywhere near being combat ready on a regular basis. He decided to tell Wesley, but it was later than it should have been.
Maybe Lorne should talk to the Transunding Sisters about putting up a spell that prevents violence from anyone, Humans included. And if it isn't the norm for other Sanctuaries, maybe it should be. When word gets out that this happened at the Host's club, it might be.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You have to admit, they do have a point (SPOILER) -- Raven Eye, 06:50:33 10/09/01 Tue
"I'm not convinced that Gunn and Angel have and understanding of mutual respect. I think everyone at Angel Investigations have a better understanding of each other after that episode. But I think only time will be the true teller of whether it is respect or not."
Yes they do. Angel and Gunn knows they don't have to be friends to be allies. They don't have to like each other to work together for a common end.
Actually I think Angel respects the fact that Gunn doesn't like him. He trusts him more knowing that of all of them Gunn can be counted on to do the right thing if that is ever necessary.
Angel did some terrible things as Angelus. The others in Angel Investigations tend to want to forget it, but Angel is fully aware of the evil within.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You have to admit, they do have a point (SPOILER) -- Lunarchickk, 11:28:23 10/09/01 Tue
I think racial profiling is a very apt description of what we saw in the episode. We've been shown so many times that not all demons are evil, or are interested in harming humans (or other demons). And something Gio said (which I don't remember verbatim) about "them" made it very clear that the issue for Gunn's old crew was no longer protecting their own from vampires, but full-on extermination of anything non-human.
And the scariest part, to me, was that the real monsters weren't green or scaly. Angel hit the nail on the head when he suggested that whoever killing the demons was doing it for fun -- these guys were proud of what they were doing, ridding the world of beings unlike themselves. That's not just racial profiling -- on a larger level, it becomes genocide. And like other supremicist groups, they not only saw themselves as better than the demons they killed, but that the demons had no possibility of redemption -- harmless or not, their existence was crime enough.
I cheered too when Gio's head was bitten off. Even ignoring his behavior that we saw, I bet his actions in Miami more than warranted it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> past actions (SPOILER for, uh, whatever the latest AtS ep was called...) -- Solitude1056, 12:17:25 10/09/01 Tue
There's a strange trait that takes over in many movies of the week, and I'm reminded of it every time I watch something where a new character has a back-story. It's the "this is because" syndrome. For awhile there, many of the blockbuster movies we suffered through invariably had older male characters who'd pull out the "this is because of that time in 'Nam" routine. Or, in movies of the week, we'd get the "this is because I was abused as a child, myself" or whatever. Years ago, when I saw Thelma & Louise for the first time, I was waiting for the TIB syndrome to just ruin the whole movie. But instead, the scriptwriter never really told the audience why Louise wouldn't go through Texas. It became a running joke in that the characters had to go all the way around Texas. If it'd been a movie of the week, we would've gotten a whole rigamarole of TIB syndrome while Louise explained whatever it was in Texas that had happened, thus making her a sympathetic character. But we didn't get that easy out. We had to take her actions as they happened, now, without attributing any extenuating circumstances.
And Joss pulled the same thing last night, by clamping the lid on the Host giving any more details about Miami. Nor did we get exposition from the newcomer about what had happened, which might make him more sympathetic, or might not. And if it didn't, then it might make the audience dislike him for what he'd done then - when the real issue is what he's doing now. All we got was something about him fleeing Miami, couldn't go far enough, and that some girl trusted him to the end. It's possible that he told her she'd be safe while he fought off a demon and instead the demon got her. Or he might've date-raped someone. Or who knows. It could go several ways. Point is, it doesn't make any difference: it's there just to indicate that he came to LA because he couldn't face something in Miami, good or bad. Past that, we make our own conclusions - we don't get the benefit of being told, by the writing team, what we're supposed to feel about this character. We're left to decide that for ourselves, based on the only information we have.
(That, and I liked the synchronicity that the little frightened demon who kept saying, "oh god, oh god, oh god," was the same one who transmuted so quickly into a huge praying mantis-like creature and bit off the guy's head. I couldn't tell, but it seems like he was immediately killed. Bummer. I kinda liked him, don't know why. Something about the underdog who gets his, even if someone else had a good point about the baby-eater and the insect-demon being the two who had avoided instant death when the thugs first arrived.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Now that I think about it...(SPOILER) -- VampRiley, 12:31:23 10/09/01 Tue
...Gio's death was, in retrospect, a way for him to have gotten off too easily. I would have liked to have seen him suffer a lot more. Vengence or my own natural sadism? I'm not sure.
Is it just me or is Wesley's build starting to look like Spike's, at least with that shirt he had on last night? Probably the evil slaying night after night.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Now that I think about it...(SPOILER) -- spike lover, 15:32:44 10/09/01 Tue
wesley is getting more sexy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Now that I think about it...(SPOILER) -- Deeva, 16:42:53 10/09/01 Tue
Yeah, I would agree but the hair is a little too poofy. Maybe if they mussed it up a bit more with wax for a bed head look, that'd be better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: You have to admit, they do have a point (SPOILER) -- Raven Eye, 22:46:51 10/09/01 Tue
Gio was scum it seemed.
But just because he was scum (for his past actions) doesn't make all of what he said wrong. (Spike has had some great insights).
Angel Investigation was beginning to get too cozy with the enemy. They were beginning to lose perspective.
It was fine when they went to the lounge for information, but when they turned it into an afterwork hang out, that is when they went too far.
I think they have misinterpreted what Lorne is all about. It isn't his fault, as he has always been upfront with them. But I think they think they have a relationship with him that they really don't have.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> An excellent episode IMO -- Dichotomy, 12:54:38 10/09/01 Tue
I really enjoyed this episode from beginning to end. While to me the messages were crystal clear, (that is the ugliness of racism, the dangers of mob mentality, the struggle between loyalty to your roots or family and protecting your moral integrity) apparently they weren't to everyone who watched. I'm sure others felt like you did, although they appear to be in the minority here.
There are shades of grey in the real world,and I love how this show and Buffy constantly points them out.
Other things I enjoyed this ep:
1) The slurpee demon. At first menacing, then sort of cute and human, then terrified. That scene had suspense, humor and horror all in quick succession in probably less than two minutes.
2) Timid Fred fiercely protecting Angel while also sharing her considerable knowledge on what happens when one gets an arrow through the jugular.
3) While the "danger of hating of those different" message was blatantly obvious to me, I thought it was a suspenseful and well-written ep.
4) It really gave Gunn's character a springboard for development this season. I hope they'll explore his ambivalent feelings toward Angel, and his own choices more. Also, he smiled at Fred affectionately while she sang "Crazy", so I think his feelings for her may evolve to be more than friendly this season, which could lead to some interesting (and probably funny) scenes between the two of them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Spoilers above AND here. (Sorry) Other things I liked. -- Dichotomy, 13:04:30 10/09/01 Tue
1. The "oh god, oh god, oh god"demon who eats Geo's head.
2. The baby eater's threats were an eerie background music for Geo's taunts against Gunn. Both monsters (one demon, one human) were using taunts to anger their foes, and Gunn couldn't seem to distinguish one from the other. Should he have?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: An excellent episode IMO -- Raven Eye, 23:13:42 10/09/01 Tue
I thought it showed how easy it is to lose sight of the mission.
Both Gunn's old friends and new friends had. His old friends couldn't tell friend from foe, and his new ones couldn't tell foe from friend.
In the end, though, I though his old friends showed more clarity. Attacking the lounge that harbored evil creatures made sense as it represented a source of immediate threat for them. It was easy for Angel Investigations to see the lounge as solely a source of information (and now I guess entertainment) as the monsters who frequent the lounge don't usually cause problems close to where they are. I guess it even makes sense for them to use the lounge and Merl, because to them information is key for their missions.
But then they lost sight of what the lounge was really all about. They forgot what happens after the patrons leave.
Using informants, going to sleazy places for information, that's all part of being a detective. But you can't blame those who go for a more direct approach.
I believe a time will come soon when Gunn will have to reconsider his association with Angel Investigations. Gunn has shown great integrity. He can go it alone if that is called for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: An excellent episode IMO -- Mousetrap, 06:31:21 10/10/01 Wed
I saw nothing wrong with them attacking the place.
It was a good strategic move given the limited information they had about the target. It was a place that evil was vulnerable, where it let down its guard, and evil should never feel safe.
They should have let the humans leave though. There was no reason to hold Fred. But when you look at it, they could be considered collabrators, so in a way could be considered part of the enemy as well. Gunn's people had no way to know that they were there undercover.
They were there undercover, Right? On a mission? That is why they were there, of course.
It was a classic case of allies getting their wires crossed. There needs to be more coordination between the different segments of the fight.
The need to use the place for reconnaissance needs to be weighted with the potential of that place for a target. Again better communication between the segments of the fight would have prevented this. Gunn was supposed to be the liaison between Angels team and this group, but they hadn't focused on his aspect of the mission as they have been distracted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: An excellent episode IMO -- Raven Eye, 06:48:30 10/10/01 Wed
Human collaborators are as bad if not worst than the monsters they collaborate with.
That is always the problem when you are undercover. You are posing as the enemy, so allies who aren't "in the loop" might take actions against you not knowing that you are really a good guy posing as the enemy.
That is one of the more tricky aspects to spying.
I really have no ideal why Cordy and Wesley took Fred to the club that night. It seemed really odd. There wasn't any mission objective that could be achieved by having the Host "read" her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: An excellent episode IMO -- Raven Eye, 06:50:43 10/10/01 Wed
... really have no ideal why Cordy and Wesley took Fred to the club that night. It seemed really odd. There wasn't any mission objective that could be achieved by having the Host "read" her.
No idea. Sorry for the typo.
It seems they were just there for fun. If that is the case they were wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attention all ME writers lurking on this board... (it's ok, Rufus, no spoilers) -- Solitude1056, 18:32:25 10/09/01 Tue
Dear Mutant Enemy Employees & Writers lurking on this board, including our delightful head demon, Joss himself:
I want a disclaimer or a caveat or a warning at the beginning of every episode from now on. I'm visualizing something that sounds like a bad movie commercial voiceover but that in this instance would be all-too-true. You know, booming voice, or maybe simply white font on black screen, along the lines of: Everything you know is true, everything you think you know is false, everything you've forgotten, is no longer the same. Or some such other crap. You can come up with something patently like the usual fancy lines, that sound so heavy-duty. Other TV shows and movies do it all the time. Now's your turn.
See, the thing is, I thought I had it all figured out. Scroll down and you'll see that I participated in a lot of these conversations. Is Willow right? wrong? immoral? Will Spike go ballistic? Will Buffy adjust? What is heaven?