FLM films - My Webpage

2004-02-11 14:33:15-06:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Avatar <avatar@donoteventhinkaboutit.com>)


On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:47:06 -0500, Randy Money <rbmoney@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote: >dalecue wrote: >> Mark Nobles wrote in message >> <110220041219129699%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>... >> >> >> >>>Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and >>>Harm, a shortage of female characters. >> >> >> sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel > >No moreso than BtVS was about Buffy. Both shows were about community, >friendship, loyalty, family, love, loss, and how the main characters >are/were connected to those around them. > >> did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females? > >For five seasons Buffy had Giles to anchor the male side of things. >Xander grew up enough to do some anchoring in season 6 & 7, though he >wasn't as strong a presence as Giles. Spike helped some, when he helped >at all. Thought I'd beat Rose to the punch and say, "You mean, when Spike wasn't trying to rape Buffy." > >Angel, as a character, needs other characters as much as Buffy did to >give the show balance. Right now, the loss of Lilah and Cordy eliminated >the only female characters who could stand up to him day in and day out. > >Perhaps it is arguable that this loss hurts the show, but there are >those of us who think it hurts the show deeply. > > >Randy M. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sooner or later, all of our names wind up on a Post-It. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2004-02-11 14:47:06-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Randy Money <rbmoney@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu>)


dalecue wrote: > Mark Nobles wrote in message > <110220041219129699%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>... > > > >>Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and >>Harm, a shortage of female characters. > > > sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel No moreso than BtVS was about Buffy. Both shows were about community, friendship, loyalty, family, love, loss, and how the main characters are/were connected to those around them. > did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females? For five seasons Buffy had Giles to anchor the male side of things. Xander grew up enough to do some anchoring in season 6 & 7, though he wasn't as strong a presence as Giles. Spike helped some, when he helped at all. Angel, as a character, needs other characters as much as Buffy did to give the show balance. Right now, the loss of Lilah and Cordy eliminated the only female characters who could stand up to him day in and day out. Perhaps it is arguable that this loss hurts the show, but there are those of us who think it hurts the show deeply. Randy M.

2004-02-11 15:13:45-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (reldevik@usa.net)


Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:<110220041219129699%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>... > Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and > Harm, a shortage of female characters. Someone complained in another > thread about bringing in a new character out of the blue, and I think > that would be too weird myself. > > But what if, in their new dedication to getting involved with the > people in real need, the gang went back to the little mission run by > Anne (Chanterelle)? She's a tough, wholesome character, and they would > have a genuine reason to reconnect with her. In fact, given her > previous connection with W&H, it's kind of strange we haven't seen her > in so long anyway. > > What do you think, sirs? --Someone said the idea of needing female characters was sexist; I don't agree with that, but I kind of wonder about addressing the question to "sirs" only. Although I am not a sir, I shall answer that I would welcome Anne/Chantarelle on the show. I don't know if the actress is available or not, but it's a good idea. It'd be especially interesting now that Spike is on AtS, because in AtS season 2 Anne didn't remember having met Angel in Sunnydale, but she certainly remembered being bitten by a vampire, and that vampire was Spike. He gave Chantarelle quite a scare, and probably knocked all the nonsense about friendly vampires out of her head. Seeing Spike and Anne/Chantarelle come face to face again would be neat. I also would like Nina the werewolf girl to become a regular on the show. Clairel

2004-02-11 15:14:34-06:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Hell Toupee <myob@notmine.com>)


Mark Nobles wrote: > > Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and > Harm, a shortage of female characters. Someone complained in another > thread about bringing in a new character out of the blue, and I think > that would be too weird myself. Well, I liked the Nina (werewolf) character, and the possibility of a warm, yet it-never-can-be-love relationship with Angel. The problem with having a female lead on this show is that Angel's character has inherent limitations on his ability to have a love relationship. Nina feels she now has the same limitations. Yet there's an attraction between them, but one which can never be. I'd rather see a (very) low-key, wistful kind of relationship there than having another female lead and the resultant will-they-or-won't-they fall in love situation and the inherent story complications that brings. So my vote is for a warm relationship between Angel and a woman that _isn't_ predicated on romance. It would be a nice change, and Nina provides a believable justification for that type of relationship. Hell "Actually, I'd love to see more of Dana, but I'll settle for Nina" Toupee

2004-02-11 15:38:18-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (bobbytuesday@hotmail.com)


"dalecue" <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<zjvWb.18196$fV5.418922@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Mark Nobles wrote in message > <110220041219129699%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>... > > > >Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and > >Harm, a shortage of female characters. > > sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel > > did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females? Actually, yeah. Towards the end, at least. The ratio of F:M leads is as follows: S1: 3:2 S2: 3:4 S3: 3:4 S4: 3:4 S5: 5:4 S6: 5:2 S7: 5:2 After Riley left, the show got very female heavy (I count Tara as a lead in S5 and ^ because, well, at least in S6 she should have been). Giles was missing for large parts of S6 and S7 and Xander had virtually no role. It was very estrogen heavy, especially with all the SITs... In contrast, Angel went: S1: 1:2 S2: 1:3 S3: 2:4 S4: 2:5 S5: 1:5 It's always been male cast heavy, but we always had either Lilah or Darla as regulars to spice things up. Personally I prefered it when it was a much smaller cast and when Lorne was simply "the Host." Thems were the days. Having Anne back, at least for a guest spot, would be nice, though.

2004-02-11 16:22:08-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Randy Money <rbmoney@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu>)


Avatar wrote: > On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:47:06 -0500, Randy Money > <rbmoney@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote: > > >>dalecue wrote: >> >>>Mark Nobles wrote in message >>><110220041219129699%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and >>>>Harm, a shortage of female characters. >>> >>> >>>sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel >> >>No moreso than BtVS was about Buffy. Both shows were about community, >>friendship, loyalty, family, love, loss, and how the main characters >>are/were connected to those around them. >> >> >>>did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females? >> >>For five seasons Buffy had Giles to anchor the male side of things. >>Xander grew up enough to do some anchoring in season 6 & 7, though he >>wasn't as strong a presence as Giles. Spike helped some, when he helped >>at all. > > > Thought I'd beat Rose to the punch and say, "You mean, when Spike > wasn't trying to rape Buffy." :) Well, that's certainly one instance where he was less than helpful; but the rather violent nature of their relationship previous to that made the issue of rape problematic. That was a very uncomfortable scene, possibly made even moreso by knowing what had come before. It was in some ways audacious in making the audience have to question how this particular woman contributed to an atmosphere in which this particular man could believe rape was somehow the right thing to do, and then wonder how often such a thing could happen in the real world. Randy M.

2004-02-11 17:01:16-07:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com>)


On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:24:15 GMT, "dalecue" <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote: > >Mark Nobles wrote in message ><110220041219129699%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>... > > >>Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and >>Harm, a shortage of female characters. > >sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel > >did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females? Buffy Males Season 1 Giles, Xander (recurring, Angel 7/12) Season 2 Giles, Xander, Angel (recurring, Spike 12, Oz 10) Season 3 Giles, Xander, Angel, Oz (recurring, Wilkins 11, Wesley 9) Season 4 Giles, Xander, Oz(6), Spike(16), Riley(12) (recurring, Riley 8,Spike 2,Oz 2, Forrest 12, Bailey 10) Season 5 Giles, Xander, Spike(21), Riley(10) (recurring, Ben 14) Season 6 Xander, Spike (recurring, Jonathan 11, Andrew 11, Warren 9, Giles 8) Season 7 Xander, Spike (recurring, Andrew 15, Wood 14, Giles 13) Angel Females Season 1 Cordelia (recurring, Kate 10, Lilah 6, Darla 3) Season 2 Cordelia (recurring, Darla 9, Lilah 7, Kate 7, Drusilla 4, Fred 4) Season 3 Cordelia(19), Fred (recurring, Lilah 13, Justine 7, Darla 5) Season 4 Cordelia, Fred (recurring, Lilah 10, Jasmine 5) (although Cordelia appears on camera in all 22 eps, she only appears in a dream sequence and in 'higher plane' cutaway teases in the first 3, and she lies motionless in a coma in her brief appearances in the last 4) Season 5 Fred (recurring, Harmony 8/12, Eve 7/12) It should be fairly obvious that there are far more regular and/or frequently recurring male characters on Buffy than there are regular and/or frequently recurring female characters on Angel. There were neverl less than 2 male title credit characters on Buffy, and there were 3 or more for 88 of the 144 episodes (4 for 44 episodes). There was only 1 female title credit character for 56 of the 100 Angel episodes and 2 title credit characters for 44 episodes. -- You've reached the Tittles. We can't come to the phone right now If you want to leave a message for Christine, Press 1 For Bentley, Press 2 Or to speak to, or worship, Master Tarfall, Underlord of Pain, Press 3

2004-02-11 18:19:12+00:00 - New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and Harm, a shortage of female characters. Someone complained in another thread about bringing in a new character out of the blue, and I think that would be too weird myself. But what if, in their new dedication to getting involved with the people in real need, the gang went back to the little mission run by Anne (Chanterelle)? She's a tough, wholesome character, and they would have a genuine reason to reconnect with her. In fact, given her previous connection with W&H, it's kind of strange we haven't seen her in so long anyway. What do you think, sirs?

2004-02-11 19:24:15+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (dalecue <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net>)


Mark Nobles wrote in message <110220041219129699%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>... >Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and >Harm, a shortage of female characters. sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females? Someone complained in another >thread about bringing in a new character out of the blue, and I think >that would be too weird myself. > >But what if, in their new dedication to getting involved with the >people in real need, the gang went back to the little mission run by >Anne (Chanterelle)? She's a tough, wholesome character, and they would >have a genuine reason to reconnect with her. In fact, given her >previous connection with W&H, it's kind of strange we haven't seen her >in so long anyway. > >What do you think, sirs?

2004-02-11 19:34:56-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Brian Grassie <bkwrm79@hotmail.com>)


"Xavier Sloane" <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0EyWb.491$tL3.360@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Hell Toupee" <myob@notmine.com> wrote in message > news:402A9B3A.A52F3D75@notmine.com... > > Mark Nobles wrote: > > > > > > Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and > > > Harm, a shortage of female characters. Someone complained in another > > > thread about bringing in a new character out of the blue, and I think > > > that would be too weird myself. > > > > Well, I liked the Nina (werewolf) character, and the possibility of a > > warm, yet it-never-can-be-love relationship with Angel. The problem with > > having a female lead on this show is that Angel's character has inherent > > limitations on his ability to have a love relationship. Nina feels she > > now has the same limitations. Yet there's an attraction between them, > > but one which can never be. I'd rather see a (very) low-key, wistful > > kind of relationship there than having another female lead and the > > resultant will-they-or-won't-they fall in love situation and the > > inherent story complications that brings. > > I'm an avid X-Files re-run viewer (I never bothered to watch more than a > couple of episodes when new eps were being made because I thought it was > "boring", it took several episodes of re-runs that aired at 2:00 am when > there was nothing else to watch for me to learn to appreciate just how > intense the show really is/was), and I can't help but think you don't need > such "limitations" to have a lead female role who isn't going to fall in > love with the lead male role. Just look at Scully and Mulder for example: > though there was sexual tension there, they had a relationship based on > mutual respect and admiration. They had a very deep love for one another > which was restrained by professionalism and friendship. To a certain > extent, it seemed they had too much respect for eachother to risk making the > other uncomfortable with what might turn out to be un-wanted advances. > > Willow and Xander also had such a relationship. Sure they had their > indescressions while Xander and Cordy were together, but Xander really > didn't seem to have any romantic feelings for her. That whole kissing thing > while he was dating Cordy seemed like he was just trying to relieve the > sexual tension that had built up between them and seeing if it would go > anywhere. When push came to shove, Xander loved Willow as a friend and > nothing more -- and yet this love was so strong that Xander actually used it > to SAVE THE WORLD. > > Then there's Buffy and Giles. I mean, Giles straight-up LOVED Buffy. And I > don't mean romantic love, I mean fatherly love. He had intense, parental, > take-a-bullet-to-save-her-life LOVE for the girl and never ONCE thought of > her in a sexual sense. Anyone who watched the show knew that Giles had the > kind of love that kids are *lucky* if they get from their parents -- the way > he encouraged and supported her nomatter what almost defied belief. > > > So my vote is for a warm relationship between Angel and a woman that > > _isn't_ predicated on romance. It would be a nice change, and Nina > > provides a believable justification for that type of relationship. > > Why does there have to be "justification"? Because every female that Angel > has ever respected or admired became the object of his desire? Because he > can't love a woman in the sense of friendship? Because if he doesn't have > romantic interest in a woman, he seems indifferent toward them? Actually, > nevermind. When it comes to Angel, there *does* need to be justification. > > Angel isn't a strong enough male character to handle a strong female > character without falling in love with her. Angel's a weak little kitten > (emotionally) and strong women just make him weaker. Angel is a lot like > Xander was at age 16. The difference: Xander actually grew up at some point > and became a man, while Angel is still just a pathetic little boy who is > incapable of having a mature relationship with anyone based on mutual > respect and (non-romantic) love. > > Peace Out, > - Xavier Sloane Great points. I'd love it if Nina became a recurring character - the Angel cast could use another female character, IMNSHO - but I don't think it's at all necessary for her to have a romantic relationship with anyone. Or for Angel to. I do think that Buffy was short of guys. Except Oz, they never really had a strong male teen character - Xander was often shown as pretty pathetic/useless, Giles was older, Angel and Spike were much older plus dead. I'd have really liked it if they'd included a smart, good-guy male teenager.

2004-02-11 20:13:33+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (dalecue <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net>)


Randy Money wrote in message <402A86BA.4030404@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu>... >dalecue wrote: >> Mark Nobles wrote in message >> <110220041219129699%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>... >> >> >> >>>Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and >>>Harm, a shortage of female characters. >> >> >> sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel > >No moreso than BtVS was about Buffy. Both shows were about community, >friendship, loyalty, family, love, loss, and how the main characters >are/were connected to those around them. > >> did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females? > >For five seasons Buffy had Giles to anchor the male side of things. >Xander grew up enough to do some anchoring in season 6 & 7, though he >wasn't as strong a presence as Giles. Spike helped some, when he helped >at all. > >Angel, as a character, needs other characters as much as Buffy did to >give the show balance. Right now, the loss of Lilah and Cordy eliminated >the only female characters who could stand up to him day in and day out. > >Perhaps it is arguable that this loss hurts the show, but there are >those of us who think it hurts the show deeply. a good point, not however, the point of the orig-post, which is what I was responding to Dale > > >Randy M. >

2004-02-11 20:42:33+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


In article <N1wWb.18405$fV5.421789@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, dalecue <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote: > Randy Money wrote in message <402A86BA.4030404@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu>... > >dalecue wrote: > >> Mark Nobles wrote in message > >> <110220041219129699%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>... > >> > >> > >> > >>>Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and > >>>Harm, a shortage of female characters. > >> > >> > >> sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel If you think the show is about Angel, then you have missed the whole point of it. Also, your judgment is sexist, not what you are judging. > > > >No moreso than BtVS was about Buffy. Both shows were about community, > >friendship, loyalty, family, love, loss, and how the main characters > >are/were connected to those around them. > > > >> did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females? > > > >For five seasons Buffy had Giles to anchor the male side of things. > >Xander grew up enough to do some anchoring in season 6 & 7, though he > >wasn't as strong a presence as Giles. Spike helped some, when he helped > >at all. > > > >Angel, as a character, needs other characters as much as Buffy did to > >give the show balance. Right now, the loss of Lilah and Cordy eliminated > >the only female characters who could stand up to him day in and day out. > > > > > >Perhaps it is arguable that this loss hurts the show, but there are > >those of us who think it hurts the show deeply. > > a good point, not however, the point of the orig-post, which is what > I was responding to > No, actually it was exactly the point of the original post (sez the OP). What set Buffy off from the "ordinary" Slayer was that she had friends and family, and a life. Those relationships were what the show was about - the forces of darkness were just McGuffins. Angel is about the same thing. It is the relationships, the connections with the people he saves, that makes his work matter. Doyle said so in so many words. The problem I was seeing was that without having *strong*, regular characters who are female, while you tend to get a lot of victims who are female, then it creates an atmosphere of victim=female, rescuer=male. That would be something truly obnoxious.

2004-02-11 21:31:13+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


In article <402A9B3A.A52F3D75@notmine.com>, Hell Toupee <myob@notmine.com> wrote: > Mark Nobles wrote: > > > > Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and > > Harm, a shortage of female characters. Someone complained in another > > thread about bringing in a new character out of the blue, and I think > > that would be too weird myself. > > Well, I liked the Nina (werewolf) character, and the possibility of a > warm, yet it-never-can-be-love relationship with Angel. The problem with > having a female lead on this show is that Angel's character has inherent > limitations on his ability to have a love relationship. Nina feels she > now has the same limitations. Yet there's an attraction between them, > but one which can never be. I'd rather see a (very) low-key, wistful > kind of relationship there than having another female lead and the > resultant will-they-or-won't-they fall in love situation and the > inherent story complications that brings. > > So my vote is for a warm relationship between Angel and a woman that > _isn't_ predicated on romance. It would be a nice change, and Nina > provides a believable justification for that type of relationship. > > Hell "Actually, I'd love to see more of Dana, but I'll settle for Nina" > Toupee You know, that's what made me think of Anne. She showed no romantic interest in Angel at all - if anything, she strikes me as more Gunn's type - but she is independent, strong and capable, not in any way a victim. Pretty much the opposite of what she was when we met her the first two times. Dana is just too damaged to be really strong for a while. Her story would just be too parallel to Angel's to be a good fit.

2004-02-11 23:10:52+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Xavier Sloane <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com>)


"Hell Toupee" <myob@notmine.com> wrote in message news:402A9B3A.A52F3D75@notmine.com... > Mark Nobles wrote: > > > > Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and > > Harm, a shortage of female characters. Someone complained in another > > thread about bringing in a new character out of the blue, and I think > > that would be too weird myself. > > Well, I liked the Nina (werewolf) character, and the possibility of a > warm, yet it-never-can-be-love relationship with Angel. The problem with > having a female lead on this show is that Angel's character has inherent > limitations on his ability to have a love relationship. Nina feels she > now has the same limitations. Yet there's an attraction between them, > but one which can never be. I'd rather see a (very) low-key, wistful > kind of relationship there than having another female lead and the > resultant will-they-or-won't-they fall in love situation and the > inherent story complications that brings. I'm an avid X-Files re-run viewer (I never bothered to watch more than a couple of episodes when new eps were being made because I thought it was "boring", it took several episodes of re-runs that aired at 2:00 am when there was nothing else to watch for me to learn to appreciate just how intense the show really is/was), and I can't help but think you don't need such "limitations" to have a lead female role who isn't going to fall in love with the lead male role. Just look at Scully and Mulder for example: though there was sexual tension there, they had a relationship based on mutual respect and admiration. They had a very deep love for one another which was restrained by professionalism and friendship. To a certain extent, it seemed they had too much respect for eachother to risk making the other uncomfortable with what might turn out to be un-wanted advances. Willow and Xander also had such a relationship. Sure they had their indescressions while Xander and Cordy were together, but Xander really didn't seem to have any romantic feelings for her. That whole kissing thing while he was dating Cordy seemed like he was just trying to relieve the sexual tension that had built up between them and seeing if it would go anywhere. When push came to shove, Xander loved Willow as a friend and nothing more -- and yet this love was so strong that Xander actually used it to SAVE THE WORLD. Then there's Buffy and Giles. I mean, Giles straight-up LOVED Buffy. And I don't mean romantic love, I mean fatherly love. He had intense, parental, take-a-bullet-to-save-her-life LOVE for the girl and never ONCE thought of her in a sexual sense. Anyone who watched the show knew that Giles had the kind of love that kids are *lucky* if they get from their parents -- the way he encouraged and supported her nomatter what almost defied belief. > So my vote is for a warm relationship between Angel and a woman that > _isn't_ predicated on romance. It would be a nice change, and Nina > provides a believable justification for that type of relationship. Why does there have to be "justification"? Because every female that Angel has ever respected or admired became the object of his desire? Because he can't love a woman in the sense of friendship? Because if he doesn't have romantic interest in a woman, he seems indifferent toward them? Actually, nevermind. When it comes to Angel, there *does* need to be justification. Angel isn't a strong enough male character to handle a strong female character without falling in love with her. Angel's a weak little kitten (emotionally) and strong women just make him weaker. Angel is a lot like Xander was at age 16. The difference: Xander actually grew up at some point and became a man, while Angel is still just a pathetic little boy who is incapable of having a mature relationship with anyone based on mutual respect and (non-romantic) love. Peace Out, - Xavier Sloane

2004-02-11 23:11:01+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - ("R. Watson" <shanovia@earthlink.net>)


At this point any female to draw in the female viewers are needed. "Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:110220041219129699%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com... > Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and > Harm, a shortage of female characters. Someone complained in another > thread about bringing in a new character out of the blue, and I think > that would be too weird myself. > > But what if, in their new dedication to getting involved with the > people in real need, the gang went back to the little mission run by > Anne (Chanterelle)? She's a tough, wholesome character, and they would > have a genuine reason to reconnect with her. In fact, given her > previous connection with W&H, it's kind of strange we haven't seen her > in so long anyway. > > What do you think, sirs?

2004-02-12 00:05:06+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


In article <1faed770.0402111513.5da99fa0@posting.google.com>, Clairel <reldevik@usa.net> wrote: > Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message > news:<110220041219129699%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>... > > Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and > > Harm, a shortage of female characters. Someone complained in another > > thread about bringing in a new character out of the blue, and I think > > that would be too weird myself. > > > > But what if, in their new dedication to getting involved with the > > people in real need, the gang went back to the little mission run by > > Anne (Chanterelle)? She's a tough, wholesome character, and they would > > have a genuine reason to reconnect with her. In fact, given her > > previous connection with W&H, it's kind of strange we haven't seen her > > in so long anyway. > > > > What do you think, sirs? > > --Someone said the idea of needing female characters was sexist; I > don't agree with that, but I kind of wonder about addressing the > question to "sirs" only. That's what Mike always said, but then he was addressing Dr. Forester and TV's Frank. I am open to suggestions. > > Although I am not a sir, I shall answer that I would welcome > Anne/Chantarelle on the show. I don't know if the actress is > available or not, but it's a good idea. I finally remembered her name, Julia Lee, and found her in the imdb. While she has been making movies since Angel, she's playing characters called "Another hot girl" and "Spa receptionist." This would seem to indicate she's available enough. > It'd be especially > interesting now that Spike is on AtS, because in AtS season 2 Anne > didn't remember having met Angel in Sunnydale, but she certainly > remembered being bitten by a vampire, and that vampire was Spike. He > gave Chantarelle quite a scare, and probably knocked all the nonsense > about friendly vampires out of her head. Seeing Spike and > Anne/Chantarelle come face to face again would be neat. I did not realize this, but it does add a lot to Spike's story. Also, looking her up in imdb, I found she also went by the name Joan. Wonder if that was why Buffy adopted that name when her mind was a blank slate? > > I also would like Nina the werewolf girl to become a regular on the > show. I was not so impressed.

2004-02-12 01:21:29+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Xavier Sloane <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com>)


"Brian Grassie" <bkwrm79@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7VzWb.2447$Fp5.279@read1.cgocable.net... > Great points. I'd love it if Nina became a recurring character - the Angel > cast could use another female character, IMNSHO - but I don't think it's at > all necessary for her to have a romantic relationship with anyone. Or for > Angel to. Actually I'd like to see Angel date outside the office a little bit and realize that he doesn't have to have this "epic love" type of relationship to be happy with someone. Unfortunately, when two main characters in almost *any* show have a relationship, it's almost always in an "epic love" type of capacity. Angel's been there, done that (with Buffy), then went there again and almost did it (with Cordy). The dude needs some balance in his life. Nina isn't a particularly strong character at this point. But I think she will be when she learns to deal with this who werewolf thing. With Oz it was relatively easy, because he knew of others in his family that were going through the same thing. Remember his phone conversation? He just roled with the punches and adjusted - sure it was hard at first, but he did what he had to do. Once Nina learns to do the same, she'll probably be a strong female character, if the writers don't turn her into a broody little twit like Angel. Though I have to say, I like Angel more as the broody little twit he is now than the Ken doll eye-candy 90210 reject he was in Buffy season 1. > I do think that Buffy was short of guys. Except Oz, they never really had a > strong male teen character - Xander was often shown as pretty > pathetic/useless, Giles was older, Angel and Spike were much older plus > dead. I'd have really liked it if they'd included a smart, good-guy male > teenager. I think Xander was the quintessential akward teenage boy, who later developed into an emotionally strong male. His little "conseling" session with Buffy before Riley took off in the helicopter illustrates this well. Xander was understated, to be sure, but he had so much heart that most Buffy fans will agree he didn't get nearly the appreciation he should have on screen. Now I really like Spike's character, but honestly, I was rooting for Xander when he tried to stake Spike after seeing him and Anya sleeping together. And I very much enjoyed seeing the pain in Buffy's eyes when Xander scolded Anya for sleeping with him. For me, that was the moment that Xander stopped being everyone's butt-monkey and let people know that *his* feelings mattered as much as everyone else's. Giles started off somewhat weak, but he too became an unbelievably strong character. He may not have been a teen, but the show didn't do very well when he wasn't around as much IMNSHO. He also provided balance for the show's "all adults are either evil or stupid" attitude, as well as being a strong male character. Oz could've been a great smart, good-guy male teen character (Xander didn't become a strong male character until he was, what? Like 20 years old?), but Seth Green left the show because the writers weren't doing anything with his character. Who knows? Maybe the character would've really gone places if only the actor would've been willing to ride it out a bit longer. Personally, I'd like to see Wes track Oz down (maybe for a cameo, or maybe not on screen at all) on Nina's behalf and send her off to get "trained" (no pun intended) to control her Lycanthropy, so that she could "wolf-out" at will and not do it if she didn't want to. Then she could come back a few episodes later and be a very powerful female lead. - Xavier Sloane

2004-02-12 07:33:57+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Chris Zabel <alephnull@earthlink.net>)


I think the show has seriously been hurt this year with the lack of more than one female regular. I think other shows or staffs could get away with it, but ME has shown in the past that they handle female characters better and its odd they would make Angel such a boy's club. -- "They tease me now, telling me it was only a dream. But does it matter whether it was a dream or reality, if the dream made known to me the truth?" - Dostoevsky

2004-02-12 07:34:04-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (bobbytuesday@hotmail.com)


"dalecue" <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<HrGWb.21545$fV5.484316@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > Bobby Tuesday wrote in message > <8eeece58.0402111538.41ee64a8@posting.google.com>... > >"dalecue" <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote in message > news:<zjvWb.18196$fV5.418922@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > >> Mark Nobles wrote in message > >> <110220041219129699%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>... > >> > >> > >> >Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and > >> >Harm, a shortage of female characters. > >> > >> sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel > >> > >> did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females? > > > > > > > >Actually, yeah. > > Sorry, the question was rhetorical - of course Buffy had more > females - I thjought it a devilishly clever way to point out no one > felt _that_ situation was a problem > > I solemly swear to be less subtle in the future no, I was actually not very forward with my response. I actually did think that there was an overabundance and many people pointed it out towards the end, over on ATBVS. My ratios were to show the shift, and how it wasn't always but became that way. That's one of the reasons I didn't like the last few seasons of BtVS. I used to identify with Xander somewhat and liked Giles as an anchor to the adult world. When Xander was being used for filler and Giles became absentee, while a natural progression in the story of a young girl coming to terms with her destiny, I lost interest.

2004-02-12 07:58:34+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (dalecue <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net>)


Mark Nobles wrote in message <110220041442335785%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>... >In article <N1wWb.18405$fV5.421789@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, >dalecue <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> Randy Money wrote in message <402A86BA.4030404@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu>... >> >dalecue wrote: >> >> Mark Nobles wrote in message >> >> <110220041219129699%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and >> >>>Harm, a shortage of female characters. >> >> >> >> >> >> sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel > >If you think the show is about Angel, then you have missed the whole >point of it. Also, your judgment is sexist, not what you are judging. >> > >> >No moreso than BtVS was about Buffy. Both shows were about community, >> >friendship, loyalty, family, love, loss, and how the main characters >> >are/were connected to those around them. >> > >> >> did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females? >> > >> >For five seasons Buffy had Giles to anchor the male side of things. >> >Xander grew up enough to do some anchoring in season 6 & 7, though he >> >wasn't as strong a presence as Giles. Spike helped some, when he helped >> >at all. >> > >> >Angel, as a character, needs other characters as much as Buffy did to >> >give the show balance. Right now, the loss of Lilah and Cordy eliminated >> >the only female characters who could stand up to him day in and day out. >> > >> >> >> >Perhaps it is arguable that this loss hurts the show, but there are >> >those of us who think it hurts the show deeply. >> >> a good point, not however, the point of the orig-post, which is what >> I was responding to >> >No, actually it was exactly the point of the original post (sez the OP). well, if that was _exactly_ the point of the post, why did you say 'blah, blah overabundance of male characters'? - if you in fact ment something else - I must have missed the memo that mind reading was required Dale > >What set Buffy off from the "ordinary" Slayer was that she had friends >and family, and a life. Those relationships were what the show was >about - the forces of darkness were just McGuffins. > >Angel is about the same thing. It is the relationships, the connections >with the people he saves, that makes his work matter. Doyle said so in >so many words. > >The problem I was seeing was that without having *strong*, regular >characters who are female, while you tend to get a lot of victims who >are female, then it creates an atmosphere of >victim=female, rescuer=male. >That would be something truly obnoxious.

2004-02-12 08:03:51+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (dalecue <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net>)


Bobby Tuesday wrote in message <8eeece58.0402111538.41ee64a8@posting.google.com>... >"dalecue" <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<zjvWb.18196$fV5.418922@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... >> Mark Nobles wrote in message >> <110220041219129699%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>... >> >> >> >Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and >> >Harm, a shortage of female characters. >> >> sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel >> >> did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females? > > >Actually, yeah. Sorry, the question was rhetorical - of course Buffy had more females - I thjought it a devilishly clever way to point out no one felt _that_ situation was a problem I solemly swear to be less subtle in the future Dale Towards the end, at least. The ratio of F:M leads is >as follows: > >S1: 3:2 >S2: 3:4 >S3: 3:4 >S4: 3:4 >S5: 5:4 >S6: 5:2 >S7: 5:2 > >After Riley left, the show got very female heavy (I count Tara as a >lead in S5 and ^ because, well, at least in S6 she should have been). >Giles was missing for large parts of S6 and S7 and Xander had >virtually no role. It was very estrogen heavy, especially with all >the SITs... > >In contrast, Angel went: > >S1: 1:2 >S2: 1:3 >S3: 2:4 >S4: 2:5 >S5: 1:5 > >It's always been male cast heavy, but we always had either Lilah or >Darla as regulars to spice things up. Personally I prefered it when >it was a much smaller cast and when Lorne was simply "the Host." >Thems were the days. > >Having Anne back, at least for a guest spot, would be nice, though.

2004-02-12 08:08:55+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (dalecue <pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net>)


William George Ferguson wrote in message ... >On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:24:15 GMT, "dalecue" ><pdgill@spamxerworldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> >>Mark Nobles wrote in message >><110220041219129699%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>... >> >> >>>Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and >>>Harm, a shortage of female characters. >> >>sounds pretty sexist to me - this show is about Angel >> >>did you think Buffy had an 'overabundance' of females? > > >Buffy Males >Season 1 Giles, Xander (recurring, Angel 7/12) >Season 2 Giles, Xander, Angel (recurring, Spike 12, Oz 10) >Season 3 Giles, Xander, Angel, Oz (recurring, Wilkins 11, Wesley 9) >Season 4 Giles, Xander, Oz(6), Spike(16), Riley(12) > (recurring, Riley 8,Spike 2,Oz 2, Forrest 12, Bailey 10) >Season 5 Giles, Xander, Spike(21), Riley(10) (recurring, Ben 14) >Season 6 Xander, Spike > (recurring, Jonathan 11, Andrew 11, Warren 9, Giles 8) >Season 7 Xander, Spike > (recurring, Andrew 15, Wood 14, Giles 13) > > >Angel Females >Season 1 Cordelia (recurring, Kate 10, Lilah 6, Darla 3) >Season 2 Cordelia > (recurring, Darla 9, Lilah 7, Kate 7, Drusilla 4, Fred 4) >Season 3 Cordelia(19), Fred (recurring, Lilah 13, Justine 7, Darla 5) >Season 4 Cordelia, Fred (recurring, Lilah 10, Jasmine 5) > (although Cordelia appears on camera in all 22 eps, she only > appears in a dream sequence and in 'higher plane' cutaway > teases in the first 3, and she lies motionless in a coma in her > brief appearances in the last 4) >Season 5 Fred (recurring, Harmony 8/12, Eve 7/12) > > >It should be fairly obvious that there are far more regular and/or >frequently recurring male characters on Buffy than there are regular >and/or frequently recurring female characters on Angel. good job on auditing - now if you could explain how that is some kind of problem/undesireable situation, you'll get my vote of confidence Dale There were >neverl less than 2 male title credit characters on Buffy, and there were >3 or more for 88 of the 144 episodes (4 for 44 episodes). There was only >1 female title credit character for 56 of the 100 Angel episodes and 2 >title credit characters for 44 episodes. > > > > >-- >You've reached the Tittles. We can't come to the phone right now >If you want to leave a message for Christine, Press 1 >For Bentley, Press 2 >Or to speak to, or worship, Master Tarfall, Underlord of Pain, Press 3

2004-02-12 11:09:01-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (reldevik@usa.net)


"Xavier Sloane" <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<tyAWb.697$WW3.204@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>... > Now I really like Spike's character, but honestly, I was rooting for Xander > when he tried to stake Spike after seeing him and Anya sleeping together. > And I very much enjoyed seeing the pain in Buffy's eyes when Xander scolded > Anya for sleeping with him. For me, that was the moment that Xander stopped > being everyone's butt-monkey and let people know that *his* feelings > mattered as much as everyone else's. --You have got to be kidding. Xander breaks Anya's heart by leaving her at the altar, and then you applaud his scolding her for making use of the freedom she has as a single, unattached woman to seek comfort in the arms of anyone she chooses--because you think Xander needs to let everyone know that *his* feelings matter? Xander has made it abundantly clear over the past seven years what his feelings are. He spouts off on every occasion, about every topic, whether it's a topic that's any of his business or not. One of my favorite BtVS moments was at the end of "Phases" in season 2 when Xander was spouting off to Buffy about how he didn't feel Willow should be dating Oz: Xander said "If it was up to me--" and Buffy cut him off by firmly saying "Xander, it isn't up to you." I cheered Buffy at that moment! Buffy should have said the same thing to Xander outside the Magic Box at the end of BtVS 7.18 ("Entropy"). Buffy sleeping with Spike was none of Xander's business, and Anya sleeping with Spike was none of Xander's business either. When he left Anya at the altar, he cut her loose, and he has no right to complain about what she does after that. If he had wanted to be all possessive about Anya, all Xander had to do was marry her. The wedding was his idea; the proposal was his idea. Anya getting disgusted with him when he didn't follow through on HIS OWN IDEA is only to be expected. You seriously think that a woman's ex--an ex who broke up with her when she just wanted to marry him--has the right to attack the rejected woman verbally when she moves on to someone else, and has a right to attack the someone else violently? Spike and Anya were both consenting adults, and both single and unattached. What they do together in private is nobody else's business. There shouldn't have been spy cameras recording their private encounter at all, and anyone with a sense of honor who saw the camera transmission by accident should have respected Spike and Anya's privacy and refrained from acting on that knowledge. Remember this simple fact, which you seem to have so much trouble bearing in mind: XANDER PROPOSED MARRIAGE TO ANYA, THEN *HE* BROKE UP WITH HER BY LEAVING HER AT THE ALTAR--and leaving her an unattached, single woman who is free to go about her own affairs, and free to determine what those affairs should be, whether they include Spike or any other guy who is ready and willing. Clairel

2004-02-12 11:12:19-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (reldevik@usa.net)


Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:<110220041805062235%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>... > In article <1faed770.0402111513.5da99fa0@posting.google.com>, Clairel > <reldevik@usa.net> wrote: > > > Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:<110220041219129699%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>... > > > Angel has an overabundance of male characters, and, even with Eve and > > > Harm, a shortage of female characters. Someone complained in another > > > thread about bringing in a new character out of the blue, and I think > > > that would be too weird myself. > > > > > > But what if, in their new dedication to getting involved with the > > > people in real need, the gang went back to the little mission run by > > > Anne (Chanterelle)? She's a tough, wholesome character, and they would > > > have a genuine reason to reconnect with her. In fact, given her > > > previous connection with W&H, it's kind of strange we haven't seen her > > > in so long anyway. > > > > > > What do you think, sirs? > > > > --Someone said the idea of needing female characters was sexist; I > > don't agree with that, but I kind of wonder about addressing the > > question to "sirs" only. > > That's what Mike always said, but then he was addressing Dr. Forester > and TV's Frank. I am open to suggestions. > > > > Although I am not a sir, I shall answer that I would welcome > > Anne/Chantarelle on the show. I don't know if the actress is > > available or not, but it's a good idea. > > I finally remembered her name, Julia Lee, and found her in the imdb. > While she has been making movies since Angel, she's playing characters > called "Another hot girl" and "Spa receptionist." This would seem to > indicate she's available enough. > > > > It'd be especially > > interesting now that Spike is on AtS, because in AtS season 2 Anne > > didn't remember having met Angel in Sunnydale, but she certainly > > remembered being bitten by a vampire, and that vampire was Spike. He > > gave Chantarelle quite a scare, and probably knocked all the nonsense > > about friendly vampires out of her head. Seeing Spike and > > Anne/Chantarelle come face to face again would be neat. > > I did not realize this, but it does add a lot to Spike's story. --What, you never saw the BtVS season 2 episode "Lie To Me"? Don't put it off any longer. It's a classic. Go get a tape or DVD right away. You don't really know Anne/Chantarelle if you haven't seen "Lie To Me." How did you even know she had used the pseudonym "Chantarelle"? Clairel

2004-02-12 20:07:58+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Xavier Sloane <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com>)


"Clairel" <reldevik@usa.net> wrote in message news:1faed770.0402121109.7c7629a5@posting.google.com... > "Xavier Sloane" <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<tyAWb.697$WW3.204@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>... > > Now I really like Spike's character, but honestly, I was rooting for Xander > > when he tried to stake Spike after seeing him and Anya sleeping together. > > And I very much enjoyed seeing the pain in Buffy's eyes when Xander scolded > > Anya for sleeping with him. For me, that was the moment that Xander stopped > > being everyone's butt-monkey and let people know that *his* feelings > > mattered as much as everyone else's. > > --You have got to be kidding. Xander breaks Anya's heart by leaving > her at the altar, and then you applaud his scolding her for making use > of the freedom she has as a single, unattached woman to seek comfort > in the arms of anyone she chooses--because you think Xander needs to > let everyone know that *his* feelings matter? > > Xander has made it abundantly clear over the past seven years what his > feelings are. He spouts off on every occasion, about every topic, > whether it's a topic that's any of his business or not. > > One of my favorite BtVS moments was at the end of "Phases" in season 2 > when Xander was spouting off to Buffy about how he didn't feel Willow > should be dating Oz: Xander said "If it was up to me--" and Buffy cut > him off by firmly saying "Xander, it isn't up to you." I cheered > Buffy at that moment! That was a good moment. But he was just trying to look out for Willow. She was like a sister to him. All (normal) guys get like that with their mothers/sisters/daughters/girlfriends. They feel they have to protect the women in their lives. It's an old instinct that goes back a couple of hundred thousand years. > Buffy should have said the same thing to Xander outside the Magic Box > at the end of BtVS 7.18 ("Entropy"). Buffy sleeping with Spike was > none of Xander's business, and Anya sleeping with Spike was none of > Xander's business either. When he left Anya at the altar, he cut her > loose, and he has no right to complain about what she does after that. > If he had wanted to be all possessive about Anya, all Xander had to > do was marry her. The wedding was his idea; the proposal was his > idea. Anya getting disgusted with him when he didn't follow through > on HIS OWN IDEA is only to be expected. > > You seriously think that a woman's ex--an ex who broke up with her > when she just wanted to marry him--has the right to attack the > rejected woman verbally when she moves on to someone else, and has a > right to attack the someone else violently? Spike and Anya were both > consenting adults, and both single and unattached. What they do > together in private is nobody else's business. There shouldn't have > been spy cameras recording their private encounter at all, and anyone > with a sense of honor who saw the camera transmission by accident > should have respected Spike and Anya's privacy and refrained from > acting on that knowledge. > > Remember this simple fact, which you seem to have so much trouble > bearing in mind: XANDER PROPOSED MARRIAGE TO ANYA, THEN *HE* BROKE UP > WITH HER BY LEAVING HER AT THE ALTAR--and leaving her an unattached, > single woman who is free to go about her own affairs, and free to > determine what those affairs should be, whether they include Spike or > any other guy who is ready and willing. Firstly, I got the distinct impression that Xander was frightened by the false-future he'd seen and left Anya at the altar because he thought it was best FOR HER. He did it out of love. After seeing his future self kill Anya, it would've been more selfish to go through with the marriage. Even after finding out it was a false future, I'd imagine he'd at least need some time to think, and Anya should've understood that. But even if she didn't, and it was an official break-up, you don't go sleeping with the first person you see. You at least wait a couple of weeks to make sure it's a "real" break-up so that you don't go and sleep with someone else and have to live with that guilt for the rest of your life if you both realize that breaking up was stupid. Anya didn't wait. She jumped in the sack with the first guy she saw, which makes her kind of a skank if you ask me -- not to mention a necrophiliac. Peace Out, - Xavier Sloane

2004-02-12 21:16:41+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


In article <1faed770.0402121112.44449b54@posting.google.com>, Clairel <reldevik@usa.net> wrote: > > I did not realize this, but it does add a lot to Spike's story. > > --What, you never saw the BtVS season 2 episode "Lie To Me"? Don't > put it off any longer. It's a classic. Go get a tape or DVD right > away. Better, I should get to the doctor and find out what has happened to my memory. It isn't what it used to be. It has one of my favorite scenes, when Giles gives Buffy the little pep talk about always being able to tell the good guys from the bad guys by their white hats. > > You don't really know Anne/Chantarelle if you haven't seen "Lie To > Me." How did you even know she had used the pseudonym "Chantarelle"? I think Lily mentioned it in Anne when she reminded Buffy of who she was.

2004-02-13 04:30:20+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


In article <y2RWb.1608$tL3.367@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Xavier Sloane <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com> wrote: > She jumped > in the sack with the first guy she saw, which makes her kind of a skank if > you ask me We were on a break. - Ross Gellar

2004-02-13 14:46:02-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (reldevik@usa.net)


"Xavier Sloane" <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<CG6Xb.2493$tL3.2355@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>... > "Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message > news:120220042230187563%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com... > > In article <y2RWb.1608$tL3.367@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > Xavier Sloane <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > She jumped > > > in the sack with the first guy she saw, which makes her kind of a skank > if > > > you ask me > > > > We were on a break. - Ross Gellar > > Yeah...he was kind of a he-skank if you ask me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not > saying that what Anya did was unforgiveable, but she deserved the verbal > raking she got. She had every reason to feel really, really, really bad > about what she'd done. --I disagree. As a single, unattached consenting adult she had absolutely no reason to feel bad about what she had done. And I was glad she stood up to Xander and pointed that out. If you listen to what Anya says to Spike during the scene where they're drinking and talking together, it's clear Anya is very insecure; Xander has totally torn down her self-esteem by what she perceives as his rejection of her. (I'm not concerned with Xander's reasons for calling off the wedding--his concern for their future, for Anya's safety, etc.--I'm only concerned with how it all seems from Anya's POV.) Anya needed reassurance, needed to feel like a desirable woman again. Spike gave her that reassurance. As she later told Xander herself, Anya was seeking out comfort, not revenge. It's not as if she had plans to screw Spike and then flaunt the fact in Xander's face. She had no idea that she and Spike were being spied on. And I still say that a person who accidentally sees something private being transmitted by a villain's spy-camera is honor bound to ignore what they have seen. But aside from the question of whether Anya deserved a verbal raking, it's insane to say that Spike (also a single, unattached consenting adult) deserved a physical axing for a private encounter with a consenting partner. It's sickening that anyone would actually cheer Xander on when Xander attacked Spike. That was just about Xander's lowest moment ever on the series--the only instance equalling it was when he trespassed in Buffy's house and burst through a closed bathroom door to interrupt what he thought was a sexy bathroom tryst between Spike and Buffy. What would he have done if he had found them together naked and intertwined, as he thought he would? Scolded them for going about their private affairs in a private dwelling behind closed doors? Why should they listen to him? Why should Xander have any say over the private lives of others? Clairel

2004-02-13 16:10:49-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (himiko@animail.net)


"R. Watson" <shanovia@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<9EyWb.492$tL3.100@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>... > At this point any female to draw in the female viewers are needed. Not really. Watching a team of hot men can be fun, especially if there is a strong emphasis on their characters, relationships, and bonding. Not all women necessarily require a female character to identify with and some actually prefer not having one. The success of male targeted shows with all female casts (e.g. Charley's Angels or She Spies) suggests the opposite is true too, although there, plot and action is more important than character development, relationships, and bonding. himiko

2004-02-13 16:11:14+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Xavier Sloane <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com>)


"Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:120220042230187563%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com... > In article <y2RWb.1608$tL3.367@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > Xavier Sloane <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > She jumped > > in the sack with the first guy she saw, which makes her kind of a skank if > > you ask me > > We were on a break. - Ross Gellar Yeah...he was kind of a he-skank if you ask me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that what Anya did was unforgiveable, but she deserved the verbal raking she got. She had every reason to feel really, really, really bad about what she'd done. - Xavier

2004-02-14 17:08:01+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


Clairel wrote: > "Xavier Sloane" <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:<CG6Xb.2493$tL3.2355@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>... >> "Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message >> news:120220042230187563%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com... >>> In article <y2RWb.1608$tL3.367@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >>> Xavier Sloane <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> She jumped >>>> in the sack with the first guy she saw, which makes her kind of a >>>> skank >> if >>>> you ask me >>> >>> We were on a break. - Ross Gellar >> >> Yeah...he was kind of a he-skank if you ask me. Don't get me wrong, >> I'm not saying that what Anya did was unforgiveable, but she >> deserved the verbal raking she got. She had every reason to feel >> really, really, really bad about what she'd done. > > --I disagree. As a single, unattached consenting adult she had > absolutely no reason to feel bad about what she had done. And I was > glad she stood up to Xander and pointed that out. > > If you listen to what Anya says to Spike during the scene where > they're drinking and talking together, it's clear Anya is very > insecure; Xander has totally torn down her self-esteem by what she > perceives as his rejection of her. (I'm not concerned with Xander's > reasons for calling off the wedding--his concern for their future, for > Anya's safety, etc.--I'm only concerned with how it all seems from > Anya's POV.) Anya needed reassurance, needed to feel like a desirable > woman again. Spike gave her that reassurance. As she later told > Xander herself, Anya was seeking out comfort, not revenge. It's not > as if she had plans to screw Spike and then flaunt the fact in > Xander's face. She had no idea that she and Spike were being spied > on. > > And I still say that a person who accidentally sees something private > being transmitted by a villain's spy-camera is honor bound to ignore > what they have seen. > > But aside from the question of whether Anya deserved a verbal raking, > it's insane to say that Spike (also a single, unattached consenting > adult) deserved a physical axing for a private encounter with a > consenting partner. It's sickening that anyone would actually cheer > Xander on when Xander attacked Spike. > > That was just about Xander's lowest moment ever on the series-- I loathed Xander at that moment -- LOATHED him. How dare he? He had broken Anya's heart. She owed him nothing. He was so stupid-macho -- sorry, Xander, but Anya is not yours anymore! You have no right to tell her what (or whom) to do. >the > only instance equalling it was when he trespassed in Buffy's house and > burst through a closed bathroom door to interrupt what he thought was > a sexy bathroom tryst between Spike and Buffy. What would he have > done if he had found them together naked and intertwined, as he > thought he would? Scolded them for going about their private affairs > in a private dwelling behind closed doors? Why should they listen to > him? Why should Xander have any say over the private lives of others? > > Clairel -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-14 17:08:53+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


nimue wrote: > Clairel wrote: >> "Xavier Sloane" <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:<CG6Xb.2493$tL3.2355@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>... >>> "Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message >>> news:120220042230187563%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com... >>>> In article <y2RWb.1608$tL3.367@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, >>>> Xavier Sloane <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> She jumped >>>>> in the sack with the first guy she saw, which makes her kind of a >>>>> skank >>> if >>>>> you ask me >>>> >>>> We were on a break. - Ross Gellar >>> >>> Yeah...he was kind of a he-skank if you ask me. Don't get me wrong, >>> I'm not saying that what Anya did was unforgiveable, but she >>> deserved the verbal raking she got. She had every reason to feel >>> really, really, really bad about what she'd done. >> >> --I disagree. As a single, unattached consenting adult she had >> absolutely no reason to feel bad about what she had done. And I was >> glad she stood up to Xander and pointed that out. >> >> If you listen to what Anya says to Spike during the scene where >> they're drinking and talking together, it's clear Anya is very >> insecure; Xander has totally torn down her self-esteem by what she >> perceives as his rejection of her. (I'm not concerned with Xander's >> reasons for calling off the wedding--his concern for their future, >> for Anya's safety, etc.--I'm only concerned with how it all seems >> from Anya's POV.) Anya needed reassurance, needed to feel like a >> desirable woman again. Spike gave her that reassurance. As she >> later told Xander herself, Anya was seeking out comfort, not >> revenge. It's not as if she had plans to screw Spike and then >> flaunt the fact in Xander's face. She had no idea that she and >> Spike were being spied on. >> >> And I still say that a person who accidentally sees something private >> being transmitted by a villain's spy-camera is honor bound to ignore >> what they have seen. >> >> But aside from the question of whether Anya deserved a verbal raking, >> it's insane to say that Spike (also a single, unattached consenting >> adult) deserved a physical axing for a private encounter with a >> consenting partner. It's sickening that anyone would actually cheer >> Xander on when Xander attacked Spike. >> >> That was just about Xander's lowest moment ever on the series-- > > I loathed Xander at that moment -- LOATHED him. How dare he? He had > broken Anya's heart. She owed him nothing. He was so stupid-macho > -- sorry, Xander, but Anya is not yours anymore! You have no right > to tell her what (or whom) to do. Whoops. One more thing. Xander actually thought he had a right to kill Spike then? Oh, god. Xander was just disgusting. > >> the >> only instance equalling it was when he trespassed in Buffy's house >> and burst through a closed bathroom door to interrupt what he >> thought was a sexy bathroom tryst between Spike and Buffy. What >> would he have done if he had found them together naked and >> intertwined, as he thought he would? Scolded them for going about >> their private affairs in a private dwelling behind closed doors? >> Why should they listen to him? Why should Xander have any say over >> the private lives of others? >> >> Clairel -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-14 20:54:42+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > One more thing. Xander actually thought he had a right to kill > Spike then? Xander always had the right to kill Spike. He's a vampire. Vampire. Vampire Slayer. It's not rocket surgery.

2004-02-14 21:16:30+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


Mark Nobles wrote: > nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> One more thing. Xander actually thought he had a right to kill >> Spike then? > > Xander always had the right to kill Spike. He's a vampire. > Vampire. Vampire Slayer. > It's not rocket surgery. Um -- rocket surgery? Ok -- Xander is not the Slayer, for starters. Furthermore, Spike is a harmless vampire that the Slayer has specifically chosen NOT to kill. Oh -- one last thing. Xander did not want to kill Spike for any noble cause. Xander did not want to protect the world (and Spike was pretty harmless at that point). No -- Xander wanted to kill him out of petty, pathetic sexual jealousy. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-14 22:04:47+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


In article <OewXb.26753$Lp.2663@twister.nyc.rr.com>, nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > Mark Nobles wrote: > > nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> One more thing. Xander actually thought he had a right to kill > >> Spike then? > > > > Xander always had the right to kill Spike. He's a vampire. > > Vampire. Vampire Slayer. > > It's not rocket surgery. > > Um -- rocket surgery? Ok -- Xander is not the Slayer, for starters. Not really relevant. After Jesse, Vampires are not just for Slayers anymore. > Furthermore, Spike is a harmless vampire that the Slayer has specifically > chosen NOT to kill. Oh -- one last thing. Xander did not want to kill > Spike for any noble cause. Xander did not want to protect the world (and > Spike was pretty harmless at that point). > No -- Xander wanted to kill him > out of petty, pathetic sexual jealousy. This part I agree with. Still, was there ever a time when Xander didn't want to kill Spike? Or Angel, for that matter?

2004-02-15 04:49:38+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <OewXb.26753$Lp.2663@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > Mark Nobles wrote: > > nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> One more thing. Xander actually thought he had a right to kill > >> Spike then? > > > > Xander always had the right to kill Spike. He's a vampire. > > Vampire. Vampire Slayer. It's not rocket surgery. > > Um -- rocket surgery? Ok -- Xander is not the Slayer, for starters. Since when did you need to be a Slayer to "have a right" to kill vampires? > Furthermore, Spike is a harmless vampire that the Slayer has specifically > chosen NOT to kill. So? Who made her the boss of everyone on earth? And he wasn't harmless. Even with the chip, he managed to team up with Adam and try and kill everyone. > No -- Xander wanted to kill him out of petty, pathetic sexual jealousy. So? Dead is dead.

2004-02-15 14:13:26+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <OewXb.26753$Lp.2663@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" > <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Mark Nobles wrote: >>> nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> One more thing. Xander actually thought he had a right to kill >>>> Spike then? >>> >>> Xander always had the right to kill Spike. He's a vampire. >>> Vampire. Vampire Slayer. It's not rocket surgery. >> >> Um -- rocket surgery? Ok -- Xander is not the Slayer, for starters. > > Since when did you need to be a Slayer to "have a right" to kill > vampires? Newsflash -- Xander did not want to kill a vampire in Entropy. He wanted to kill a man who had sex with "his" woman. If he hated chipped-Spike-as-a-vampire so much, why didn't he try to kill Spike at the end of Intervention? He didn't -- in fact, he felt sorry for him. Oh, no. The only thing that leads Xander to almost kill Spike is stupid, macho, jealous rage -- that and nothing else. > >> Furthermore, Spike is a harmless vampire that the Slayer has >> specifically chosen NOT to kill. > > So? Who made her the boss of everyone on earth? > > And he wasn't harmless. Even with the chip, he managed to team up with > Adam and try and kill everyone. That was not way Xander wanted to kill him. > >> No -- Xander wanted to kill him out of petty, pathetic sexual >> jealousy. > > So? Dead is dead. Xander's reasons for wanting to kill Spike were not noble -- they were pathetic and selfish and stupid. He wanted to kill Spike for sleeping with Anya, and Spike had EVERY right to do that. Xander had just humiliated Anya, dumped her at the alter, thus, he had NO right to say what she did or with whom. He never had any right over Spike's sexual life, that's for sure. Anyway, Xander's motivation for attempting to kill Spike make Xander look supremely arrogant and egocentric. Men who act the way Xander did are disgusting and dangerous in real life (and in the Buffyverse). You see it all the time -- men who kill their ex-wives or their ex-wives' boyfriends, as if they had some right to. Yeah -- I hated Xander at that moment. That was a REAL evil, an evil we do see in every day life. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-15 17:35:00+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <a8LXb.205470$4F2.27238682@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <OewXb.26753$Lp.2663@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" > > <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> Mark Nobles wrote: > >>> nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> One more thing. Xander actually thought he had a right to kill > >>>> Spike then? > >>> > >>> Xander always had the right to kill Spike. He's a vampire. > >>> Vampire. Vampire Slayer. It's not rocket surgery. > >> > >> Um -- rocket surgery? Ok -- Xander is not the Slayer, for starters. > > > > Since when did you need to be a Slayer to "have a right" to kill > > vampires? > > Newsflash -- Xander did not want to kill a vampire in Entropy. He wanted > to kill a man who had sex with "his" woman. If he hated > chipped-Spike-as-a-vampire so much, why didn't he try to kill Spike at > the end of Intervention? He didn't -- in fact, he felt sorry for him. Oh, > no. The only thing that leads Xander to almost kill Spike is stupid, macho, > jealous rage -- that and nothing else. None of that was what you said. You said "Xander is not the Slayer, for starters" which implies that unless one is a Slayer, one doesn't have "the right" to kill vampires. And if Xander killed Spike out of stupid, macho, jealous rage... well, that's fine. It's still one less vampire in the world. > >> Furthermore, Spike is a harmless vampire that the Slayer has > >> specifically chosen NOT to kill. > > > > So? Who made her the boss of everyone on earth? > > And he wasn't harmless. Even with the chip, he managed to team up with > > Adam and try and kill everyone. > > That was not way Xander wanted to kill him. It still would have stopped Spike from working with Adam to kill everyone. You seem to think everyone who kills an evil, vicious demon should do an Oprah-style feelings check beforehand to make sure their motivations are pure enough. Rubbish. > >> No -- Xander wanted to kill him out of petty, pathetic sexual > >> jealousy. > > > > So? Dead is dead. > > Xander's reasons for wanting to kill Spike were not noble Who ever said they had to be noble? Buffy and Faith kill vampires for the thrill of it, because it gives them a jazz. How noble is that?

2004-02-15 19:42:26+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <a8LXb.205470$4F2.27238682@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" snip > > And if Xander killed Spike out of stupid, macho, jealous rage... well, > that's fine. It's still one less vampire in the world. That may be true, but it says some very bad things about Xander -- namely that he is a possessive, out-of-control, violent jerk. > >>>> Furthermore, Spike is a harmless vampire that the Slayer has >>>> specifically chosen NOT to kill. >>> >>> So? Who made her the boss of everyone on earth? > >>> And he wasn't harmless. Even with the chip, he managed to team up >>> with Adam and try and kill everyone. >> >> That was not way Xander wanted to kill him. > > It still would have stopped Spike from working with Adam to kill > everyone. > > You seem to think everyone who kills an evil, vicious demon should do > an Oprah-style feelings check beforehand to make sure their > motivations are pure enough. > > Rubbish. > >>>> No -- Xander wanted to kill him out of petty, pathetic sexual >>>> jealousy. >>> >>> So? Dead is dead. >> >> Xander's reasons for wanting to kill Spike were not noble > > Who ever said they had to be noble? > > Buffy and Faith kill vampires for the thrill of it, because it gives > them a jazz. How noble is that? Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. A sense of duty kept her going, and that is noble. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-15 22:28:07+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <CYPXb.148881$cM1.27604450@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <a8LXb.205470$4F2.27238682@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" > snip > > > > And if Xander killed Spike out of stupid, macho, jealous rage... well, > > that's fine. It's still one less vampire in the world. > > That may be true, but it says some very bad things about Xander -- namely > that he is a possessive, out-of-control, violent jerk. Possibly, but that wasn't the contention. > >>>> Furthermore, Spike is a harmless vampire that the Slayer has > >>>> specifically chosen NOT to kill. > >>> > >>> So? Who made her the boss of everyone on earth? > > > >>> And he wasn't harmless. Even with the chip, he managed to team up > >>> with Adam and try and kill everyone. > >> > >> That was not way Xander wanted to kill him. > > > > It still would have stopped Spike from working with Adam to kill > > everyone. > > > > You seem to think everyone who kills an evil, vicious demon should do > > an Oprah-style feelings check beforehand to make sure their > > motivations are pure enough. > > > > Rubbish. > > > >>>> No -- Xander wanted to kill him out of petty, pathetic sexual > >>>> jealousy. > >>> > >>> So? Dead is dead. > >> > >> Xander's reasons for wanting to kill Spike were not noble > > > > Who ever said they had to be noble? > > > > Buffy and Faith kill vampires for the thrill of it, because it gives > > them a jazz. How noble is that? > > Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. A sense of duty kept her > going, and that is noble. She also admitted to Faith that she gets off on the fight.

2004-02-16 02:06:59+11:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net>)


> > Firstly, I got the distinct impression that Xander was frightened by the > false-future he'd seen and left Anya at the altar because he thought it was > best FOR HER. He did it out of love. After seeing his future self kill > Anya, it would've been more selfish to go through with the marriage. Even > after finding out it was a false future, I'd imagine he'd at least need some > time to think, and Anya should've understood that. > Xander didn't marry her because he didn't want to marry her. Did you miss the entire season leading up to HB? Their conversation in Entropy where he'd had time to think and still didn't want to marry her? > But even if she didn't, and it was an official break-up, you don't go > sleeping with the first person you see. You at least wait a couple of weeks > to make sure it's a "real" break-up so that you don't go and sleep with > someone else and have to live with that guilt for the rest of your life if > you both realize that breaking up was stupid. That may be reasonable when a couple have the "I'm not sure this is working, I think we need some space" type break-up. Not in this instance. Even if they had reconciled, screwing Spike was not something she had to feel guilty about. >> Anya didn't wait.<< How much time are you approximating passes between HB & Entrpoy? I would've thought several days. Besides, Anya and Xander have a conversation in Entropy _before_ she boinks Spike in which he again admits that he doesn't want to marry her. What the hell is she supposed to be waiting for!? ~Angel

2004-02-16 13:32:48-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <160220041025103328%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>, Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote: > In article <SS4Yb.38918$Lp.11660@twister.nyc.rr.com>, nimue > <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Yes, she has occasionally said she enjoys the fight -- but she has far more > > often expressed the wish to leave off being the Slayer. She talks about how > > it's a dreadful burden -- she talks about that a lot, yet a sense of duty > > keeps her going. > > "Sorry. Sacred duty. Yada yada yada." Prophecy Girl. - Actually, that was _Surprise_ -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2004-02-16 13:35:08-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <7m7Yb.148994$cM1.28046344@twister.nyc.rr.com>, nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > snip > >>>> > >>>> Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. A sense of duty > >>>> kept her going, and that is noble. > >>> > >>> She also admitted to Faith that she gets off on the fight. > >> > >> Yes, she has occasionally said she enjoys the fight -- but she has > >> far more often expressed the wish to leave off being the Slayer. > >> She talks about how it's a dreadful burden -- she talks about that a > >> lot, yet a sense of duty keeps her going. > > > > "Sorry. Sacred duty. Yada yada yada." Prophecy Girl. > > But she still goes for the cup of yogurt after. > > And she didn't complain about having the stamina of ten women, either. > > Ok -- well try this, from Becoming II: > > Buffy: "No, it doesn't stop! It *never* stops! > Do-do you think I chose to be like this? Do you have any idea how lonely > it is, how dangerous? I would *love* to be upstairs watching TV or > gossiping about boys or... God, even studying! But I have to save the > world... again." > > Well, whaddaya think? Buffy had pretty much accepted her destiny from the beginning of season 3, and in _Helpless_ she is actually dismayed at the thought that she might not be the Slayer anymore. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2004-02-16 14:56:50+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <CYPXb.148881$cM1.27604450@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" > <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article <a8LXb.205470$4F2.27238682@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" >> snip >>> >>> And if Xander killed Spike out of stupid, macho, jealous rage... >>> well, that's fine. It's still one less vampire in the world. >> >> That may be true, but it says some very bad things about Xander -- >> namely that he is a possessive, out-of-control, violent jerk. > > Possibly, but that wasn't the contention. Actually, it was. That was my contention. I was discussing how that scene made me despise Xander. Furthermore, I really wonder about you. If a man has broken up with a woman, and publicly humiliated her to boot, that man has no right to tell that woman what to do. How can you think that a man who attempts to axe murder his ex's next sexual partner is only "possibly" possessive, out-of-control, and violent? I would say that kind of behavior is the definition of possessive, out-of-control, and violent, but I guess it seems normal to you. > snip >>> >>> Buffy and Faith kill vampires for the thrill of it, because it gives >>> them a jazz. How noble is that? >> >> Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. A sense of duty >> kept her going, and that is noble. > > She also admitted to Faith that she gets off on the fight. Yes, she has occasionally said she enjoys the fight -- but she has far more often expressed the wish to leave off being the Slayer. She talks about how it's a dreadful burden -- she talks about that a lot, yet a sense of duty keeps her going. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-16 16:25:10+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


In article <SS4Yb.38918$Lp.11660@twister.nyc.rr.com>, nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <CYPXb.148881$cM1.27604450@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" > > <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> BTR1701 wrote: > >>> In article <a8LXb.205470$4F2.27238682@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" > >> snip > >>> > >>> And if Xander killed Spike out of stupid, macho, jealous rage... > >>> well, that's fine. It's still one less vampire in the world. > >> > >> That may be true, but it says some very bad things about Xander -- > >> namely that he is a possessive, out-of-control, violent jerk. > > > > Possibly, but that wasn't the contention. > > Actually, it was. That was my contention. I was discussing how that scene > made me despise Xander. Furthermore, I really wonder about you. If a man > has broken up with a woman, and publicly humiliated her to boot, that man > has no right to tell that woman what to do. How can you think that a man > who attempts to axe murder his ex's next sexual partner is only "possibly" > possessive, out-of-control, and violent? I would say that kind of behavior > is the definition of possessive, out-of-control, and violent, but I guess it > seems normal to you. If his ex's next sexual partner is a *vampire*, then he has a right to kill it. Why do you insist on leaving out the important part? This is not sexual politics - it's about a *vampire*. > > > snip > >>> > >>> Buffy and Faith kill vampires for the thrill of it, because it gives > >>> them a jazz. How noble is that? > >> > >> Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. A sense of duty > >> kept her going, and that is noble. > > > > She also admitted to Faith that she gets off on the fight. > > Yes, she has occasionally said she enjoys the fight -- but she has far more > often expressed the wish to leave off being the Slayer. She talks about how > it's a dreadful burden -- she talks about that a lot, yet a sense of duty > keeps her going. "Sorry. Sacred duty. Yada yada yada." Prophecy Girl. But she still goes for the cup of yogurt after. And she didn't complain about having the stamina of ten women, either.

2004-02-16 17:13:31-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Mark Jones <sinanju@pacifier.com>)


BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>, on or about Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:54:44 GMT, did you or did you not state: Re: Xander killing Spike >Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day there >would still have been one less vampire in the world. Nah. If Spike weren't around--for any reason (story reasons, actor availability reasons, whatever--they'd still have saved the world. And they'd have done it without Spike. -- [AGB] Bullet Sponge "So what happened then, grandpa?" "Well, I got KILLED, of course!"

2004-02-16 17:36:13+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


Mark Nobles wrote: > In article <SS4Yb.38918$Lp.11660@twister.nyc.rr.com>, nimue > <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> BTR1701 wrote: >>> In article <CYPXb.148881$cM1.27604450@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" >>> <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> BTR1701 wrote: >>>>> In article <a8LXb.205470$4F2.27238682@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" >>>> snip >>>>> >>>>> And if Xander killed Spike out of stupid, macho, jealous rage... >>>>> well, that's fine. It's still one less vampire in the world. >>>> >>>> That may be true, but it says some very bad things about Xander -- >>>> namely that he is a possessive, out-of-control, violent jerk. >>> >>> Possibly, but that wasn't the contention. >> >> Actually, it was. That was my contention. I was discussing how >> that scene made me despise Xander. Furthermore, I really wonder >> about you. If a man has broken up with a woman, and publicly >> humiliated her to boot, that man has no right to tell that woman >> what to do. How can you think that a man who attempts to axe murder >> his ex's next sexual partner is only "possibly" possessive, >> out-of-control, and violent? I would say that kind of behavior is >> the definition of possessive, out-of-control, and violent, but I >> guess it seems normal to you. > > If his ex's next sexual partner is a *vampire*, then he has a right to > kill it. Why do you insist on leaving out the important part? This is > not sexual politics - it's about a *vampire*. Are you telling me you really believe that after viewing Spike and his ex-honey Anya having sex, Xander picked up an axe and rushed over to the Magic Box to kill Spike because Spike was a vampire??? Please. He had lived with Spike's existence for years. It's NOT about vampire. It's about sexual jealousy. > snip-- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-16 17:46:43+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


snip >>>> >>>> Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. A sense of duty >>>> kept her going, and that is noble. >>> >>> She also admitted to Faith that she gets off on the fight. >> >> Yes, she has occasionally said she enjoys the fight -- but she has >> far more often expressed the wish to leave off being the Slayer. >> She talks about how it's a dreadful burden -- she talks about that a >> lot, yet a sense of duty keeps her going. > > "Sorry. Sacred duty. Yada yada yada." Prophecy Girl. > But she still goes for the cup of yogurt after. > And she didn't complain about having the stamina of ten women, either. Ok -- well try this, from Becoming II: Buffy: "No, it doesn't stop! It *never* stops! Do-do you think I chose to be like this? Do you have any idea how lonely it is, how dangerous? I would *love* to be upstairs watching TV or gossiping about boys or... God, even studying! But I have to save the world... again." Well, whaddaya think? -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-16 18:16:50+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > Well, whaddaya think? She does it because she has to. Seriously, sacred duty. She makes the best of it by enjoying the little bit of buzz she gets from it. Even Faith actually did it because it was her sacred duty. She had an opportunity to walk away, but that would be wrong, so she went in and did what had to be done. Still, she does enjoy the buzz she gets from it, and is at least a whole lot more open about that part than B.

2004-02-16 18:26:03+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > Mark Nobles wrote: > > > > If his ex's next sexual partner is a *vampire*, then he has a right to > > kill it. Why do you insist on leaving out the important part? This is > > not sexual politics - it's about a *vampire*. > > Are you telling me you really believe that after viewing Spike and his > ex-honey Anya having sex, Xander picked up an axe and rushed over to the > Magic Box to kill Spike because Spike was a vampire??? Please. He had > lived with Spike's existence for years. It's NOT about vampire. It's about > sexual jealousy. I've told you this: Xander always had the right to kill Spike. He's a vampire. Vampire. Vampire Slayer. It's not rocket surgery. You claimed he has no right to kill Spike. I say he does. His motivation is irrelevant. Yes, he did it because he was jealous. He "had feelings for" Anya. They were on a break. He had no right to be jealous, but, you know what? Rights have nothing to do with feelings. Rights are about reasons. Feelings are, by definition, not. He felt jealous. That did not give him the right to do anything except feel sorry for himself. However, it did not invalidate his right to kill Spike, either.

2004-02-16 18:41:06+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > - Actually, that was _Surprise_ You are correct, Sir. Thank you.

2004-02-16 20:32:18+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


Mark Nobles wrote: > nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Well, whaddaya think? > > She does it because she has to. Seriously, sacred duty. She makes the > best of it by enjoying the little bit of buzz she gets from it. > > Even Faith actually did it because it was her sacred duty. She had an > opportunity to walk away, but that would be wrong, so she went in and > did what had to be done. Still, she does enjoy the buzz she gets from > it, and is at least a whole lot more open about that part than B. I don't Buffy is repressing her enjoyment of the buzz. It's just that that kind of buzz isn't her reason for living -- it's Faith's reason for living. Contrast Faith and Buffy's behavior in all aspects of their lives and it becomes obvious that the buzz will mean a whole lot more to Faith. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-16 20:36:07+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


Mark Nobles wrote: > nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Mark Nobles wrote: >>> >>> If his ex's next sexual partner is a *vampire*, then he has a right >>> to kill it. Why do you insist on leaving out the important part? >>> This is not sexual politics - it's about a *vampire*. >> >> Are you telling me you really believe that after viewing Spike and >> his ex-honey Anya having sex, Xander picked up an axe and rushed >> over to the Magic Box to kill Spike because Spike was a vampire??? >> Please. He had lived with Spike's existence for years. It's NOT >> about vampire. It's about sexual jealousy. > > > I've told you this: > Xander always had the right to kill Spike. He's a vampire. > Vampire. Vampire Slayer. > It's not rocket surgery. > > > You claimed he has no right to kill Spike. I say he does. > His motivation is irrelevant. > > Yes, he did it because he was jealous. He "had feelings for" Anya. > They were on a break. He had no right to be jealous, but, you know > what? Rights have nothing to do with feelings. Rights are about > reasons. Feelings are, by definition, not. He felt jealous. That did > not give him the right to do anything except feel sorry for himself. > However, it did not invalidate his right to kill Spike, either. Xander's reasons for killing Spike are LOATHESOME. They are all about Xander's jealousy, Xander's rage, Xander's humiliation. As I said before, in real life you can see men acting exactly the way Xander acted, and the results are always tragic. Xander's motivations are very important here, and they were disgusting. It may be all right to kill a chipped vampire -- or it may not (Buffy thinks it's not). However, it is not okay to kill out of a jealous, sexual, possessive rage -- ever -- and that is what Xander tried to do. He had no right to kill Spike if those were his reasons and those were his reasons. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-16 22:29:37+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


nimue wrote: > Mark Nobles wrote: > > nimue wrote: > > > >> Well, whaddaya think? > > > > She does it because she has to. Seriously, sacred duty. She makes the > > best of it by enjoying the little bit of buzz she gets from it. > > > > Even Faith actually did it because it was her sacred duty. She had an > > opportunity to walk away, but that would be wrong, so she went in and > > did what had to be done. Still, she does enjoy the buzz she gets from > > it, and is at least a whole lot more open about that part than B. > > I don't Buffy is repressing her enjoyment of the buzz. It's just that that > kind of buzz isn't her reason for living -- it's Faith's reason for living. > Contrast Faith and Buffy's behavior in all aspects of their lives and it > becomes obvious that the buzz will mean a whole lot more to Faith. I believe we are in agreement, or close enough. Ah, now I find the original subject: > Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. > A sense of duty kept her going, and that is noble. There have been times when she slayed because she wanted to - the vamp whore comes to mind first. I also find the way she treated willie to be somewhat less than noble on occasion. And even she admitted the way she treated Spike was shameful. But you know what? I could argue that those times don't matter. The fact is she was doing a job she hated because it had to be done. That is noble. The fact that she was a hot chick with superpowers who managed to find a little bit of pleasure in it, or that she used it to vent her feelings instead of expressing them does not detract from that. I was going to stop here, but I've convinced myself as I wrote it that those times do, indeed, matter. The times when she abused her hotness and her superpowers do matter. With great power comes great responsibility. She used her great powers irresponsibly. Noble was when Buffy jumped into the abyss instead of throwing Dawn in. Noble was when Buffy told Giles that even if it was the end of the world and everyone in it, including Dawn, the last thing she would see would be Buffy protecting her. Slaying the vampire whore was right. That's what Slayers do. But it was not noble. Buffy didn't slay it because it was a vampire, she slew it because it was the whore who had just been sucking her boyfriend, and because he was letting it. It's like you said - Faith lived for the buzz, and did the job to keep the buzz. Buffy did the job because it needed to be done. But when she abused her superpowers - even once, and she did -then it quit being noble. This was the message Doyle gave Angel. It is not about the numbers. You can't rescue enough innocents that you are allowed to eat one once in a while. Nobility is about perfection. This was the same message Cordelia just delivered to Angel in "You're Welcome", btw.

2004-02-16 22:45:46+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


Mark Nobles wrote: > nimue wrote: >> Mark Nobles wrote: >>> nimue wrote: >>> >>>> Well, whaddaya think? >>> >>> She does it because she has to. Seriously, sacred duty. She makes >>> the best of it by enjoying the little bit of buzz she gets from it. >>> >>> Even Faith actually did it because it was her sacred duty. She had >>> an opportunity to walk away, but that would be wrong, so she went >>> in and did what had to be done. Still, she does enjoy the buzz she >>> gets from it, and is at least a whole lot more open about that part >>> than B. >> >> I don't Buffy is repressing her enjoyment of the buzz. It's just >> that that kind of buzz isn't her reason for living -- it's Faith's >> reason for living. Contrast Faith and Buffy's behavior in all >> aspects of their lives and it becomes obvious that the buzz will >> mean a whole lot more to Faith. > > I believe we are in agreement, or close enough. > Ah, now I find the original subject: > >> Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. >> A sense of duty kept her going, and that is noble. > > There have been times when she slayed because she wanted to - > the vamp whore comes to mind first. > I also find the way she treated willie to be somewhat less than noble > on occasion. > And even she admitted the way she treated Spike was shameful. > > But you know what? I could argue that those times don't matter. The > fact is she was doing a job she hated because it had to be done. That > is noble. The fact that she was a hot chick with superpowers who > managed to find a little bit of pleasure in it, or that she used it to > vent her feelings instead of expressing them does not detract from > that. > > I was going to stop here, but I've convinced myself as I wrote it that > those times do, indeed, matter. The times when she abused her hotness > and her superpowers do matter. With great power comes great > responsibility. She used her great powers irresponsibly. > > Noble was when Buffy jumped into the abyss instead of throwing Dawn > in. Noble was when Buffy told Giles that even if it was the end of the > world and everyone in it, including Dawn, the last thing she would see > would be Buffy protecting her. > > Slaying the vampire whore was right. That's what Slayers do. But it > was not noble. Buffy didn't slay it because it was a vampire, she > slew it because it was the whore who had just been sucking her > boyfriend, and because he was letting it. > > > It's like you said - Faith lived for the buzz, and did the job to keep > the buzz. Buffy did the job because it needed to be done. But when she > abused her superpowers - even once, and she did -then it quit being > noble. This was the message Doyle gave Angel. It is not about the > numbers. You can't rescue enough innocents that you are allowed to eat > one once in a while. Nobility is about perfection. This was the same > message Cordelia just delivered to Angel in "You're Welcome", btw. Honestly, by your standards, there has never been a noble human being in the world. I don't think it works like that. There are humans who strive to be noble (although they do fail from time to time) and then there are those who couldn't care less, and just live to get their kicks. Buffy often used her powers resonsibly, sometimes she did not. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-16 23:12:38-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


nimue wrote: > And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy, > possessiveness, and sexual rage. How many vampires did Buffy murder over the years? -- DJensen

2004-02-16 23:13:30-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


Mark Jones wrote: > BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>, on or about Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:54:44 > GMT, did you or did you not state: >>Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day there >>would still have been one less vampire in the world. > > Nah. If Spike weren't around--for any reason (story reasons, actor > availability reasons, whatever--they'd still have saved the world. > And they'd have done it without Spike. And those people he killed/turned for the First Evil would still be alive. -- DJensen

2004-02-16 23:31:03+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > in real life and this qualification makes everything else you say pointless.

2004-02-16 23:50:11+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > Honestly, by your standards, there has never been a noble human being in the > world. I don't think it works like that. > There are humans who strive to be > noble (although they do fail from time to time) That is my standard, precisely. > and then there are those who > couldn't care less, and just live to get their kicks. Buffy often used her > powers resonsibly, sometimes she did not. And that is my case, precisely. Because sometimes she did not strive because she didn't care to. That is where she lost it. To try and fail is far, far different from not trying. Even though, in the end, the result is the same.

2004-02-17 00:45:58+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


Mark Nobles wrote: > nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Honestly, by your standards, there has never been a noble human >> being in the world. I don't think it works like that. > > >> There are humans who strive to be >> noble (although they do fail from time to time) > > That is my standard, precisely. > > >> and then there are those who >> couldn't care less, and just live to get their kicks. Buffy often >> used her powers resonsibly, sometimes she did not. > > And that is my case, precisely. Yeah -- that's called being human. > > Because sometimes she did not strive because she didn't care to. That > is where she lost it. Again -- human. > > To try and fail is far, far different from not trying. Even though, in > the end, the result is the same. Look, by your standards, Martin Luther King was not a noble man because he did not always use his powers for good. Despite his ironclad commitment to the civil rights movement, he would sometimes use that charisma of his to charm young ladies into the bed that he should have been sharing with his wife. I think Martin Luther King was a noble man who was just that -- a man -- human. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-17 00:48:19+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


nimue wrote: > Mark Nobles wrote: >> nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> Honestly, by your standards, there has never been a noble human >>> being in the world. I don't think it works like that. >> >> >>> There are humans who strive to be >>> noble (although they do fail from time to time) >> >> That is my standard, precisely. >> >> >>> and then there are those who >>> couldn't care less, and just live to get their kicks. Buffy often >>> used her powers resonsibly, sometimes she did not. >> >> And that is my case, precisely. > > Yeah -- that's called being human. There is a big difference between someone who lives to hurt others -- loves to hurt others -- and someone who always tries to be kind but sometimes loses their temper and yells. Do you understand that? >> >> Because sometimes she did not strive because she didn't care to. That >> is where she lost it. > > Again -- human. >> >> To try and fail is far, far different from not trying. Even though, >> in the end, the result is the same. > > Look, by your standards, Martin Luther King was not a noble man > because he did not always use his powers for good. Despite his > ironclad commitment to the civil rights movement, he would sometimes > use that charisma of his to charm young ladies into the bed that he > should have been sharing with his wife. I think Martin Luther King > was a noble man who was just that -- a man -- human. One more thing -- what planet are you on? I mean, really -- do you think that there are ANY people who fit your incredibly unealistic guidelines of what constitutes nobility? -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-17 00:50:45+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <SS4Yb.38918$Lp.11660@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <CYPXb.148881$cM1.27604450@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" > > <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> BTR1701 wrote: > >>> In article <a8LXb.205470$4F2.27238682@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" > >> snip > >>> > >>> And if Xander killed Spike out of stupid, macho, jealous rage... > >>> well, that's fine. It's still one less vampire in the world. > >> > >> That may be true, but it says some very bad things about Xander -- > >> namely that he is a possessive, out-of-control, violent jerk. > > > > Possibly, but that wasn't the contention. > > Actually, it was. That was my contention. It wasn't what I was replying to. I was replying to your "for starters, he isn't the Slayer" contention as a reason for his having "no right" to kill Spike, as if only a Slayer has the right to do that. > Furthermore, I really wonder about you. If a > man has broken up with a woman, and publicly humiliated her to boot, that man > has no right to tell that woman what to do. How can you think that a man > who attempts to axe murder his ex's next sexual partner is only > "possibly" possessive, out-of-control, and violent? Because this is a fantasy show dealing with vampires and demons and in no way translates to a real life situation. > >>> Buffy and Faith kill vampires for the thrill of it, because it gives > >>> them a jazz. How noble is that? > >> > >> Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. A sense of duty > >> kept her going, and that is noble. > > > > She also admitted to Faith that she gets off on the fight. > > Yes, she has occasionally said she enjoys the fight -- but she has far > more often expressed the wish to leave off being the Slayer. And whenever that wish has had any chance of becoming a reality, she backs away from it, even panics that she might suddenly become "average", like she did in "Helpless".

2004-02-17 00:54:44+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <XQ9Yb.149024$cM1.28098957@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > Mark Nobles wrote: > > nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> Mark Nobles wrote: > >>> > >>> If his ex's next sexual partner is a *vampire*, then he has a right > >>> to kill it. Why do you insist on leaving out the important part? > >>> This is not sexual politics - it's about a *vampire*. > >> > >> Are you telling me you really believe that after viewing Spike and > >> his ex-honey Anya having sex, Xander picked up an axe and rushed > >> over to the Magic Box to kill Spike because Spike was a vampire??? > >> Please. He had lived with Spike's existence for years. It's NOT > >> about vampire. It's about sexual jealousy. > > > > > > I've told you this: > > Xander always had the right to kill Spike. He's a vampire. > > Vampire. Vampire Slayer. > > It's not rocket surgery. > > > > > > You claimed he has no right to kill Spike. I say he does. > > His motivation is irrelevant. > > > > Yes, he did it because he was jealous. He "had feelings for" Anya. > > They were on a break. He had no right to be jealous, but, you know > > what? Rights have nothing to do with feelings. Rights are about > > reasons. Feelings are, by definition, not. He felt jealous. That did > > not give him the right to do anything except feel sorry for himself. > > However, it did not invalidate his right to kill Spike, either. > > Xander's reasons for killing Spike are LOATHESOME. They are all about > Xander's jealousy, Xander's rage, Xander's humiliation. Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day there would still have been one less vampire in the world.

2004-02-17 01:19:39+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <XQ9Yb.149024$cM1.28098957@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" > <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Mark Nobles wrote: >>> nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Mark Nobles wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If his ex's next sexual partner is a *vampire*, then he has a >>>>> right to kill it. Why do you insist on leaving out the important >>>>> part? This is not sexual politics - it's about a *vampire*. >>>> >>>> Are you telling me you really believe that after viewing Spike and >>>> his ex-honey Anya having sex, Xander picked up an axe and rushed >>>> over to the Magic Box to kill Spike because Spike was a vampire??? >>>> Please. He had lived with Spike's existence for years. It's NOT >>>> about vampire. It's about sexual jealousy. >>> >>> >>> I've told you this: >>> Xander always had the right to kill Spike. He's a vampire. >>> Vampire. Vampire Slayer. >>> It's not rocket surgery. >>> >>> >>> You claimed he has no right to kill Spike. I say he does. >>> His motivation is irrelevant. >>> >>> Yes, he did it because he was jealous. He "had feelings for" Anya. >>> They were on a break. He had no right to be jealous, but, you know >>> what? Rights have nothing to do with feelings. Rights are about >>> reasons. Feelings are, by definition, not. He felt jealous. That did >>> not give him the right to do anything except feel sorry for himself. >>> However, it did not invalidate his right to kill Spike, either. >> >> Xander's reasons for killing Spike are LOATHESOME. They are all >> about Xander's jealousy, Xander's rage, Xander's humiliation. > > Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day there > would still have been one less vampire in the world. And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy, possessiveness, and sexual rage. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-17 01:46:41+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


snip > >> Furthermore, I really wonder about you. If a >> man has broken up with a woman, and publicly humiliated her to boot, >> that man has no right to tell that woman what to do. How can you >> think that a man who attempts to axe murder his ex's next sexual >> partner is only "possibly" possessive, out-of-control, and violent? > > Because this is a fantasy show dealing with vampires and demons and in > no way translates to a real life situation. > Oh, yes there is absolutely no real life correlation for the Xander/Anya/Spike thing. I mean, no man has ever been filled with rage when his ex bedded another man. BTW -- what did you think of Seeing Red? Did you think Spike was an attempted rapist? If you did, then why can't you see Xander for what he was -- a possessive, violent, unjustified freak? >>>>> Buffy and Faith kill vampires for the thrill of it, because it >>>>> gives them a jazz. How noble is that? >>>> >>>> Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. A sense of duty >>>> kept her going, and that is noble. >>> >>> She also admitted to Faith that she gets off on the fight. >> >> Yes, she has occasionally said she enjoys the fight -- but she has >> far more often expressed the wish to leave off being the Slayer. > > And whenever that wish has had any chance of becoming a reality, she > backs away from it, even panics that she might suddenly become > "average", like she did in "Helpless". Yes. However, that doesn't mean she doesn't feel the weight of the Slayer's responsibilities and it doesn't mean she is just a thrill-killer. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-17 02:24:22+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <L_dYb.206543$4F2.27924588@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <XQ9Yb.149024$cM1.28098957@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" > > <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> Mark Nobles wrote: > >>> nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Mark Nobles wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> If his ex's next sexual partner is a *vampire*, then he has a > >>>>> right to kill it. Why do you insist on leaving out the important > >>>>> part? This is not sexual politics - it's about a *vampire*. > >>>> > >>>> Are you telling me you really believe that after viewing Spike and > >>>> his ex-honey Anya having sex, Xander picked up an axe and rushed > >>>> over to the Magic Box to kill Spike because Spike was a vampire??? > >>>> Please. He had lived with Spike's existence for years. It's NOT > >>>> about vampire. It's about sexual jealousy. > >>> > >>> > >>> I've told you this: > >>> Xander always had the right to kill Spike. He's a vampire. > >>> Vampire. Vampire Slayer. > >>> It's not rocket surgery. > >>> > >>> > >>> You claimed he has no right to kill Spike. I say he does. > >>> His motivation is irrelevant. > >>> > >>> Yes, he did it because he was jealous. He "had feelings for" Anya. > >>> They were on a break. He had no right to be jealous, but, you know > >>> what? Rights have nothing to do with feelings. Rights are about > >>> reasons. Feelings are, by definition, not. He felt jealous. That did > >>> not give him the right to do anything except feel sorry for himself. > >>> However, it did not invalidate his right to kill Spike, either. > >> > >> Xander's reasons for killing Spike are LOATHESOME. They are all > >> about Xander's jealousy, Xander's rage, Xander's humiliation. > > > > Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day there > > would still have been one less vampire in the world. > > And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy, > possessiveness, and sexual rage. No murder would have been committed at all. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being. A vampire is not a human being, therefore it's impossible to murder one, by definition.

2004-02-17 02:36:21+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <5oeYb.206545$4F2.27934656@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > snip > > > >> Furthermore, I really wonder about you. If a > >> man has broken up with a woman, and publicly humiliated her to boot, > >> that man has no right to tell that woman what to do. How can you > >> think that a man who attempts to axe murder his ex's next sexual > >> partner is only "possibly" possessive, out-of-control, and violent? > > > > Because this is a fantasy show dealing with vampires and demons and in > > no way translates to a real life situation. > > > Oh, yes there is absolutely no real life correlation for the > Xander/Anya/Spike thing. I mean, no man has ever been filled with rage > when his ex bedded another man. Sure. But that's not what we're talking about. Spike isn't a man. He's a soulless demon. BTW -- what did you think of Seeing Red? Did > you think Spike was an attempted rapist? I think Spike was a soulless demon. > >>>>> Buffy and Faith kill vampires for the thrill of it, because it > >>>>> gives them a jazz. How noble is that? > >>>> > >>>> Buffy has often wished she were NOT the Slayer. A sense of duty > >>>> kept her going, and that is noble. > >>> > >>> She also admitted to Faith that she gets off on the fight. > >> > >> Yes, she has occasionally said she enjoys the fight -- but she has > >> far more often expressed the wish to leave off being the Slayer. > > > > And whenever that wish has had any chance of becoming a reality, she > > backs away from it, even panics that she might suddenly become > > "average", like she did in "Helpless". > > Yes. However, that doesn't mean she doesn't feel the weight of the > Slayer's responsibilities and it doesn't mean she is just a thrill-killer. But her motivations are hardly the white-hat nobility you make them out to be. She *likes* being the Slayer, even as she complains about it. She's scared of losing her powers even as she wishes them away.

2004-02-17 09:38:56+11:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net>)


> Noble was when Buffy told Giles that even if it was the end of the > world and everyone in it, including Dawn, the last thing she would see > would be Buffy protecting her. > > If that had happened, it would've been on account of Buffy putting the life of a single person before the lives of the other six billion on the planet. I'm getting more "stupid", "selfish" and "neurotic" than noble... ~Angel

2004-02-17 11:04:39-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


nimue wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>Mark Jones wrote: >> >>>Nah. If Spike weren't around--for any reason (story reasons, actor >>>availability reasons, whatever--they'd still have saved the world. >>>And they'd have done it without Spike. >> >>And those people he killed/turned for the First Evil would still >>be alive. > > > By that logic, the world would have ended because there would have been no > Spike to wear the amulet, and then everyone would have been dead. Angel was the one intended to wear the amulet, not Spike. -- DJensen

2004-02-17 11:09:52-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


nimue wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>nimue wrote: >> >>>And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy, >>>possessiveness, and sexual rage. >> >>How many vampires did Buffy murder over the years? > > > What does that have to do with anything? Buffy was the Slayer, and when she > killed vamps, she did so because she was Called to. Doesn't it bother So if anyone but a Slayer kills a vampire, they're... wrong? > anyone to see Xander acting like the kind of man you always see on the > news -- the kind that kills his ex and her new man and feels entirely > justified in doing it? You're saying threatening to kill Spike (a vampire, remember) is like killing Anya? Where are you getting this stuff? He didn't throw Anya up against the wall and start pummeling her, you know. Xander should have dusted Spike right there on the sidewalk, we might not have lost him to the background later. And we'd be one crappy schtick vampire short. -- DJensen

2004-02-17 13:11:00-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


nimue wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>nimue wrote: >>>DJensen wrote: >>>>And those people he killed/turned for the First Evil would still >>>>be alive. >>> >>>By that logic, the world would have ended because there would have >>>been no Spike to wear the amulet, and then everyone would have been >>>dead. >> >>Angel was the one intended to wear the amulet, not Spike. > > But he didn't. Spike did -- and it worked. Who knows what would have > happened if Angel did? It would have worked. Maybe a little better too. -- DJensen

2004-02-17 13:14:03+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


snip >>>> Xander's reasons for killing Spike are LOATHESOME. They are all >>>> about Xander's jealousy, Xander's rage, Xander's humiliation. >>> >>> Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day there >>> would still have been one less vampire in the world. >> >> And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy, >> possessiveness, and sexual rage. > > No murder would have been committed at all. Murder is defined as the > unlawful killing of a human being. A vampire is not a human being, > therefore it's impossible to murder one, by definition. Ok, Xander, motivated only by possessive, sexual jealousy and out-of-control rage, would have killed a creature. No matter how you look at it, it makes Xander look awful. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-17 13:16:00+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


DJensen wrote: > nimue wrote: >> And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy, >> possessiveness, and sexual rage. > > How many vampires did Buffy murder over the years? What does that have to do with anything? Buffy was the Slayer, and when she killed vamps, she did so because she was Called to. Doesn't it bother anyone to see Xander acting like the kind of man you always see on the news -- the kind that kills his ex and her new man and feels entirely justified in doing it? -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-17 13:18:36+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


DJensen wrote: > Mark Jones wrote: > >> BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>, on or about Tue, 17 Feb 2004 >> 00:54:44 GMT, did you or did you not state: >>> Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day there >>> would still have been one less vampire in the world. >> >> Nah. If Spike weren't around--for any reason (story reasons, actor >> availability reasons, whatever--they'd still have saved the world. >> And they'd have done it without Spike. > > And those people he killed/turned for the First Evil would still > be alive. By that logic, the world would have ended because there would have been no Spike to wear the amulet, and then everyone would have been dead. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-17 13:20:45-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


alphakitten wrote: > DJensen wrote: >> nimue wrote: >>> What does that have to do with anything? Buffy was the Slayer, and >>> when she >>> killed vamps, she did so because she was Called to. Doesn't it bother >> >> So if anyone but a Slayer kills a vampire, they're... wrong? > > No, if someone kills a chipped vampire who's been helping their side, > for no reason besides rage and jealousy, they're wrong. The same chipped vampire that tried draining Willow, sided with Adam, nearly killed Riley, tried raping Buffy, and started beating her when he found out he could? That one? He's a saint! Yeah, let's keep him and hate the guy who has always seen the inevitable badness of vampire boyfriends. -- DJensen

2004-02-17 14:19:51+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <vsoYb.206584$4F2.28151256@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > snip > >>>> Xander's reasons for killing Spike are LOATHESOME. They are all > >>>> about Xander's jealousy, Xander's rage, Xander's humiliation. > >>> > >>> Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day there > >>> would still have been one less vampire in the world. > >> > >> And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy, > >> possessiveness, and sexual rage. > > > > No murder would have been committed at all. Murder is defined as the > > unlawful killing of a human being. A vampire is not a human being, > > therefore it's impossible to murder one, by definition. > > Ok, Xander, motivated only by possessive, sexual jealousy and > out-of-control rage, would have killed a creature. Xander, motivated only by possessive, sexual jealousy and out-of-control rage, would have killed an evil soulless demonic creature. I don't see the downside.

2004-02-17 16:19:45+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


DJensen wrote: > nimue wrote: >> DJensen wrote: >>> Mark Jones wrote: >>> >>>> Nah. If Spike weren't around--for any reason (story reasons, actor >>>> availability reasons, whatever--they'd still have saved the world. >>>> And they'd have done it without Spike. >>> >>> And those people he killed/turned for the First Evil would still >>> be alive. >> >> >> By that logic, the world would have ended because there would have >> been no Spike to wear the amulet, and then everyone would have been >> dead. > > Angel was the one intended to wear the amulet, not Spike. But he didn't. Spike did -- and it worked. Who knows what would have happened if Angel did? -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-17 16:23:40+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <vsoYb.206584$4F2.28151256@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" > <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> snip >>>>>> Xander's reasons for killing Spike are LOATHESOME. They are all >>>>>> about Xander's jealousy, Xander's rage, Xander's humiliation. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day >>>>> there would still have been one less vampire in the world. >>>> >>>> And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy, >>>> possessiveness, and sexual rage. >>> >>> No murder would have been committed at all. Murder is defined as the >>> unlawful killing of a human being. A vampire is not a human being, >>> therefore it's impossible to murder one, by definition. >> >> Ok, Xander, motivated only by possessive, sexual jealousy and >> out-of-control rage, would have killed a creature. > > Xander, motivated only by possessive, sexual jealousy and > out-of-control rage, would have killed an evil soulless demonic > creature. > > I don't see the downside. Would you like to be friends with a person who acted violently just because he felt possessive over a girl he was no longer with? What would you think of a man who felt entitled to tell his ex-girlfriend what to do? Who felt justified in belittlling and humiliating her for her choices *after* he had dumped her? I would not want a friend like that -- I wouldn't want a neighbor like that. They are dangerous. I dislike people like that. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-17 16:27:29+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Sillyman@famous.com)


On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 13:14:03 GMT, "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: . >> >> No murder would have been committed at all. Murder is defined as the >> unlawful killing of a human being. A vampire is not a human being, >> therefore it's impossible to murder one, by definition. > >Ok, Xander, motivated only by possessive, sexual jealousy and out-of-control >rage, would have killed a creature. No matter how you look at it, it makes >Xander look awful. No, not awful. Maybe a little dusty.

2004-02-17 16:45:50+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Sillyman@famous.com)


On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 03:31:48 +1100, alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net> wrote: >> > > >Not to mention the fact that without Spike, Buffy would've remained >curled up in the fetal position in that house she took over... > > > ~Angel Nah. She'd have wallowed in it longer without Spike there, but Buffy always finds a way to get up and get back in the fight. That is the best part of Buffy, in my opinion. Somehow she always finds a way to get it done, no matter what it costs or how much it hurts.

2004-02-17 16:49:13+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Sillyman@famous.com)


On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:19:45 GMT, "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Angel was the one intended to wear the amulet, not Spike. > >But he didn't. Spike did -- and it worked. Who knows what would have >happened if Angel did? Since Angel had his own series, and it wasn't cancelled at the time, he'd have found a way to work the magic of the amulet without being flashfried. It might have sucked, but a lot of people thought the ending with Spike sucked. Or if someone had to turn to ash maybe it could have been that snotty Kennedy! (I just found my happy thought!)

2004-02-17 17:11:57+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Sillyman@famous.com)


On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 03:41:33 +1100, alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net> wrote: >> So if anyone but a Slayer kills a vampire, they're... wrong? >> > > >No, if someone kills a chipped vampire who's been helping their side, >for no reason besides rage and jealousy, they're wrong. > > > ~Angel Mmmm. . . . no, kill him. Kill the evil soulless thing while it's still helpless, 'cause it's just a matter of time until it starts with the carnage again.

2004-02-17 19:21:07+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Sillyman@famous.com)


On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 04:37:23 +1100, alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net> wrote: >> Mmmm. . . . no, kill him. Kill the evil soulless thing while it's >> still helpless, 'cause it's just a matter of time until it starts with >> the carnage again. > > > >Well if that flies, Xander should've killed Anya the second he found out >she was a vengence demon again, right? > > ~Angel Yup. 'Course, if he'd tried she'd have knocked him into a cocked hat. It might have made good drama, I suppose. Probably better than that weak crayon scene with Dark Willow. Spike, on the other hand, was eminently killable. While picking your fights might not seem terribly valourous, there is merit in that living to fight another day philosophy.

2004-02-17 20:19:19+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


DJensen wrote: > nimue wrote: >> DJensen wrote: >>> nimue wrote: >>>> DJensen wrote: >>>>> And those people he killed/turned for the First Evil would still >>>>> be alive. >>>> >>>> By that logic, the world would have ended because there would have >>>> been no Spike to wear the amulet, and then everyone would have been >>>> dead. >>> >>> Angel was the one intended to wear the amulet, not Spike. >> >> But he didn't. Spike did -- and it worked. Who knows what would >> have happened if Angel did? > > It would have worked. Maybe a little better too. There is no way to know that. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-17 20:21:07+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


DJensen wrote: > alphakitten wrote: >> DJensen wrote: >>> nimue wrote: >>>> What does that have to do with anything? Buffy was the Slayer, and >>>> when she >>>> killed vamps, she did so because she was Called to. Doesn't it >>>> bother >>> >>> So if anyone but a Slayer kills a vampire, they're... wrong? >> >> No, if someone kills a chipped vampire who's been helping their side, >> for no reason besides rage and jealousy, they're wrong. > > The same chipped vampire that tried draining Willow, sided with > Adam, nearly killed Riley, tried raping Buffy, and started > beating her when he found out he could? That one? He's a saint! > Yeah, let's keep him and hate the guy who has always seen the > inevitable badness of vampire boyfriends. I think anyone who kills out of possessive rage is an asshole. I don't care whom he kills. If Xander felt like he owned a woman he was no longer with, that he had a right to tell her what to do, and a right to terrorize her (for that is what he did), then he is an asshole. Get it? This is about Xander and Xander's actions and the Xander's disgusting behavior. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-17 20:39:29+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Sillyman@famous.com)


On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:19:19 GMT, "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> By that logic, the world would have ended because there would have >>>>> been no Spike to wear the amulet, and then everyone would have been >>>>> dead. >>>> >>>> Angel was the one intended to wear the amulet, not Spike. >>> >>> But he didn't. Spike did -- and it worked. Who knows what would >>> have happened if Angel did? >> >> It would have worked. Maybe a little better too. > >There is no way to know that. There is possibly a way to know that, if the writers made up a draft script featuring Angel in the hellpit alongside the gals. I'm not saying it exists (probably doesn't), I'm saying that BtVS is not a documentary. Life may be unscripted, but Buffy isn't. If Marsters had been unavailable or written out the Buffyverse would still not have ended. Anyway they approached it, ME would have found a way to end the series with the Buffyverse intact. I personally was partial to the version that was being floated where Buffy sealed the entrance behind herself and stayed in the hellpit to fight uberVamps for eternity. I think it fits her short, tragic history better than burning up either of the souled undead.

2004-02-18 00:20:17-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


nimue wrote: > Mark Nobles wrote: >>nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>in real life >> >>and this qualification makes everything else you say pointless. > > You snipped way too much -- I have no idea what you are talking about. Read upthread two posts -- your own post -- and figure it out. But if that's too much for you, he's saying you've disqualified your argument by appealing to "real life" when we're talking about a work of fantasy. -- DJensen

2004-02-18 00:23:14-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


nimue wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>nimue wrote: >>>DJensen wrote: >>>>Angel was the one intended to wear the amulet, not Spike. >>> >>>But he didn't. Spike did -- and it worked. Who knows what would >>>have happened if Angel did? >> >>It would have worked. Maybe a little better too. > > > There is no way to know that. 1) It's fantasy, it would have worked if Andrew put it on backwards and got peanut butter on it. 2) Angel was the lead character of his own show, so even if he died horribly he would still appear in LA for the season premiere (or even the season finale, I forget how the timing was) of Angel the Series. -- DJensen

2004-02-18 00:27:21+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


Mark Nobles wrote: > nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> in real life > > and this qualification makes everything else you say pointless. You snipped way too much -- I have no idea what you are talking about. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-18 00:27:59-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


nimue wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>The same chipped vampire that tried draining Willow, sided with >>Adam, nearly killed Riley, tried raping Buffy, and started >>beating her when he found out he could? That one? He's a saint! >>Yeah, let's keep him and hate the guy who has always seen the >>inevitable badness of vampire boyfriends. > > I think anyone who kills out of possessive rage is an asshole. I don't care > whom he kills. If Xander felt like he owned a woman he was no longer with, > that he had a right to tell her what to do, and a right to terrorize her > (for that is what he did), then he is an asshole. Get it? This is about > Xander and Xander's actions and the Xander's disgusting behavior. He attacked Spike, not Anya, get it? You might have something resembling an argument here if he had beaten up Anya or if the role Spike filled had been played by a human. -- DJensen

2004-02-18 01:52:47+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <gerYb.206789$4F2.28225996@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <vsoYb.206584$4F2.28151256@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" > > <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> snip > >>>>>> Xander's reasons for killing Spike are LOATHESOME. They are all > >>>>>> about Xander's jealousy, Xander's rage, Xander's humiliation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day > >>>>> there would still have been one less vampire in the world. > >>>> > >>>> And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy, > >>>> possessiveness, and sexual rage. > >>> > >>> No murder would have been committed at all. Murder is defined as the > >>> unlawful killing of a human being. A vampire is not a human being, > >>> therefore it's impossible to murder one, by definition. > >> > >> Ok, Xander, motivated only by possessive, sexual jealousy and > >> out-of-control rage, would have killed a creature. > > > > Xander, motivated only by possessive, sexual jealousy and > > out-of-control rage, would have killed an evil soulless demonic > > creature. > > > > I don't see the downside. > > Would you like to be friends with a person who acted violently just > because he felt possessive over a girl he was no longer with? If he only acted violently toward soulless demons, sure. > What would you > think of a man who felt entitled to tell his ex-girlfriend what to do? The same thing I'd think of a girl who felt entitled to tell her ex-boyfriend what to do and franky, I've run into more of those in my life than the former. > Who felt justified in belittlling and humiliating her for her choices *after* he > had dumped her? I would not want a friend like that I'm not sure why this is relevant because I never said I wanted to be friends with Xander.

2004-02-18 01:55:13-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


alphakitten wrote: > IMHO, when Spike became someone they were comfortable fighting side by > side with, comfortable entrusting with Dawn, he ceased to be someone > they could kill on a whim with moral impunity. Considering that Dawn could have dusted him with a tooth pick if she felt threatened, that's really not much of an endorsement. -- DJensen

2004-02-18 03:31:48+11:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net>)


nimue wrote: > DJensen wrote: > >>nimue wrote: >> >>>DJensen wrote: >>> >>>>Mark Jones wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Nah. If Spike weren't around--for any reason (story reasons, actor >>>>>availability reasons, whatever--they'd still have saved the world. >>>>>And they'd have done it without Spike. >>>> >>>>And those people he killed/turned for the First Evil would still >>>>be alive. >>> >>> >>>By that logic, the world would have ended because there would have >>>been no Spike to wear the amulet, and then everyone would have been >>>dead. >> >>Angel was the one intended to wear the amulet, not Spike. > > > But he didn't. Spike did -- and it worked. Who knows what would have > happened if Angel did? > Not to mention the fact that without Spike, Buffy would've remained curled up in the fetal position in that house she took over... ~Angel

2004-02-18 03:41:33+11:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net>)


DJensen wrote: > nimue wrote: > >> DJensen wrote: >> >>> nimue wrote: >>> >>>> And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy, >>>> possessiveness, and sexual rage. >>> >>> >>> How many vampires did Buffy murder over the years? >> >> >> >> What does that have to do with anything? Buffy was the Slayer, and >> when she >> killed vamps, she did so because she was Called to. Doesn't it bother > > > So if anyone but a Slayer kills a vampire, they're... wrong? > No, if someone kills a chipped vampire who's been helping their side, for no reason besides rage and jealousy, they're wrong. ~Angel

2004-02-18 03:43:53+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <4032443D.3020903@netscape.net>, alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net> wrote: > DJensen wrote: > > nimue wrote: > > > >> DJensen wrote: > >> > >>> nimue wrote: > >>> > >>>> And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy, > >>>> possessiveness, and sexual rage. > >>> How many vampires did Buffy murder over the years? > >> What does that have to do with anything? Buffy was the Slayer, and > >> when she killed vamps, she did so because she was Called to. Doesn't it bother > > > > > > So if anyone but a Slayer kills a vampire, they're... wrong? > No, if someone kills a chipped vampire who's been helping their side, And also periodically trying to kill them all.

2004-02-18 03:44:51+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <40325153.2010701@netscape.net>, alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net> wrote: > Sillyman@famous.com wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 03:41:33 +1100, alphakitten > > <alphakittenx@netscape.net> wrote: > > > > > >>>So if anyone but a Slayer kills a vampire, they're... wrong? > >>No, if someone kills a chipped vampire who's been helping their side, > >>for no reason besides rage and jealousy, they're wrong. > > Mmmm. . . . no, kill him. Kill the evil soulless thing while it's > > still helpless, 'cause it's just a matter of time until it starts with > > the carnage again. > Well if that flies, Xander should've killed Anya the second he found out > she was a vengence demon again, right? Yeah, probably.

2004-02-18 04:37:23+11:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net>)


Sillyman@famous.com wrote: > On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 03:41:33 +1100, alphakitten > <alphakittenx@netscape.net> wrote: > > >>>So if anyone but a Slayer kills a vampire, they're... wrong? >>> >> >> >>No, if someone kills a chipped vampire who's been helping their side, >>for no reason besides rage and jealousy, they're wrong. >> >> >> ~Angel > > > > Mmmm. . . . no, kill him. Kill the evil soulless thing while it's > still helpless, 'cause it's just a matter of time until it starts with > the carnage again. Well if that flies, Xander should've killed Anya the second he found out she was a vengence demon again, right? ~Angel

2004-02-18 09:52:28-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Jake <wh@ever.com>)


Clairel wrote: > > "Xavier Sloane" <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<CG6Xb.2493$tL3.2355@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>... > > "Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message > > news:120220042230187563%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com... > > > In article <y2RWb.1608$tL3.367@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > > Xavier Sloane <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > She jumped > > > > in the sack with the first guy she saw, which makes her kind of a skank > > if > > > > you ask me > > > > > > We were on a break. - Ross Gellar > > > > Yeah...he was kind of a he-skank if you ask me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not > > saying that what Anya did was unforgiveable, but she deserved the verbal > > raking she got. She had every reason to feel really, really, really bad > > about what she'd done. > > --I disagree. As a single, unattached consenting adult she had > absolutely no reason to feel bad about what she had done. And I was > glad she stood up to Xander and pointed that out. > > If you listen to what Anya says to Spike during the scene where > they're drinking and talking together, it's clear Anya is very > insecure; Xander has totally torn down her self-esteem by what she > perceives as his rejection of her. (I'm not concerned with Xander's > reasons for calling off the wedding--his concern for their future, for > Anya's safety, etc.--I'm only concerned with how it all seems from > Anya's POV.) Anya needed reassurance, needed to feel like a desirable > woman again. Spike gave her that reassurance. As she later told > Xander herself, Anya was seeking out comfort, not revenge. It's not > as if she had plans to screw Spike and then flaunt the fact in > Xander's face. She had no idea that she and Spike were being spied > on. > > And I still say that a person who accidentally sees something private > being transmitted by a villain's spy-camera is honor bound to ignore > what they have seen. > > But aside from the question of whether Anya deserved a verbal raking, > it's insane to say that Spike (also a single, unattached consenting > adult) deserved a physical axing for a private encounter with a > consenting partner. It's sickening that anyone would actually cheer > Xander on when Xander attacked Spike. > > That was just about Xander's lowest moment ever on the series--the > only instance equalling it was when he trespassed in Buffy's house and > burst through a closed bathroom door to interrupt what he thought was > a sexy bathroom tryst between Spike and Buffy. What would he have > done if he had found them together naked and intertwined, as he > thought he would? Scolded them for going about their private affairs > in a private dwelling behind closed doors? Why should they listen to > him? Why should Xander have any say over the private lives of others? You're completely forgetting the whole 'leaving her at the altar' thing. How could he get any lower than that? Xander was never a favorite of mine from the start. I thought of him as a total lamo. But then somewhere around "The Zeppo", he started getting better and I started to cut him some slack. But to ask a lady to marry you and then leave her at the altar? It doesn't get any lower than that, short of outright physical abuse. Xander - "Hey, Anya, I don't wanna marry you but can we still boink?" Yeah, he's a real winner.

2004-02-18 12:17:40-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


Orchid wrote: > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: >>He attacked Spike, not Anya, get it? You might have something >>resembling an argument here if he had beaten up Anya or if the >>role Spike filled had been played by a human. > > Any human who whomped on Spike knowing he couldn't fight back seems to > be a bit ethically-challenged. Xander beat on a guy he knew couldn't hit > back. It's like defanging and declawing an animal that used to attack > people then kicking and beating that animal even though it's no longer > capable of hurting anyone. It's not only immoral but it's also cowardly. > Xander never would have tried whomping on Spike if he were able to > defend himself. [etc] Ethics are in the domain of reason, not emotion. Xander didn't calmly walk up and decided to pick on Spike because he could get away with it. He didn't put hours of thought into beating up Spike, he just went and did it. And again, it was Spike, not a person. -- DJensen

2004-02-18 12:18:40-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


nimue wrote: > That has been my argument all along. I guess some people are so > bloodthirsty, however, that they just want any excuse to slaughter -- AND > they want to make it morally ok. Nothing like cheering on a strong hero who > brutalizes the defenseless weak just because the defenseless are "evil" -- > despite having been quite decent for a long time. Oh, no, there is NEVER > anything wrong with killing people violently as long as those people deserve > it -- you know, if they are other-than-human, or something. I can think of > some people in history who thought like that. Nice ad hom there. -- DJensen

2004-02-18 13:47:01+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


DJensen wrote: > nimue wrote: >> Mark Nobles wrote: >>> nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> in real life >>> >>> and this qualification makes everything else you say pointless. >> >> You snipped way too much -- I have no idea what you are talking >> about. > > Read upthread two posts -- your own post -- and figure it out. > > But if that's too much for you, he's saying you've disqualified > your argument by appealing to "real life" when we're talking > about a work of fantasy. I think the appeal of Buffy is that it is a metaphor for real life. Although the Buffyverse is a fantasy world, and not everything can make a direct translation, a lot can. We have all known prom queen types like Cordelia, for example. That translates pretty easily. I think that Xander's behavior is all too familiar in the real world, also. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-18 13:49:38+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


DJensen wrote: > nimue wrote: >> DJensen wrote: >>> The same chipped vampire that tried draining Willow, sided with >>> Adam, nearly killed Riley, tried raping Buffy, and started >>> beating her when he found out he could? That one? He's a saint! >>> Yeah, let's keep him and hate the guy who has always seen the >>> inevitable badness of vampire boyfriends. >> >> I think anyone who kills out of possessive rage is an asshole. I >> don't care whom he kills. If Xander felt like he owned a woman he >> was no longer with, that he had a right to tell her what to do, and >> a right to terrorize her (for that is what he did), then he is an >> asshole. Get it? This is about Xander and Xander's actions and the >> Xander's disgusting behavior. > > He attacked Spike, not Anya, get it? You might have something > resembling an argument here if he had beaten up Anya or if the > role Spike filled had been played by a human. Oh, you don't think that terrified and terrorized Anya? Please. Seeing Xander come after the man you just slept with with an axe is deeply frightening. Yeah -- that was meant for her, too. He didn't try to kill her (although who knows what would have happened if he had been allowed to continue to rage unchecked) but he sure did try to slaughter someone in her presence, and that is very abusive, frightening behavior. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-18 13:50:07+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


alphakitten wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: >> In article <4032443D.3020903@netscape.net>, alphakitten >> <alphakittenx@netscape.net> wrote: >> >> >>> DJensen wrote: >>> >>>> nimue wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> DJensen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> nimue wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy, >>>>>>> possessiveness, and sexual rage. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> How many vampires did Buffy murder over the years? >>>>> >> >>>>> What does that have to do with anything? Buffy was the Slayer, >>>>> and when she killed vamps, she did so because she was Called to. >>>>> Doesn't it bother >>>> >>>> >>>> So if anyone but a Slayer kills a vampire, they're... wrong? >>> >> >>> No, if someone kills a chipped vampire who's been helping their >>> side, >> >> >> And also periodically trying to kill them all. > > > > IMHO, when Spike became someone they were comfortable fighting side by > side with, comfortable entrusting with Dawn, he ceased to be someone > they could kill on a whim with moral impunity. > > > ~Angel I'm with you, kid. GMTA. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-18 13:53:30+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


DJensen wrote: > alphakitten wrote: > >> IMHO, when Spike became someone they were comfortable fighting side >> by side with, comfortable entrusting with Dawn, he ceased to be >> someone they could kill on a whim with moral impunity. > > Considering that Dawn could have dusted him with a tooth pick if > she felt threatened, that's really not much of an endorsement. They trusted him to protect Dawn from demons, from humans, from all the scary things life has. He wasn't protecting Dawn from himself. There was no need to. He was protecting her from the things a young teen needs protecting from -- Buffyverse and the real world threatening things. When those demons came to town, Spike could have just left Dawn, but he didn't. She was his priority. when you have that kind of relationship with someone, when someone does that important of a job for you, you don't dust them because their dick is bigger than yours -- get it? -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-18 13:59:51+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


Orchid wrote: > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > >> nimue wrote: >>> DJensen wrote: >>>> The same chipped vampire that tried draining Willow, sided with >>>> Adam, nearly killed Riley, tried raping Buffy, and started >>>> beating her when he found out he could? That one? He's a saint! >>>> Yeah, let's keep him and hate the guy who has always seen the >>>> inevitable badness of vampire boyfriends. >>> >>> I think anyone who kills out of possessive rage is an asshole. I >>> don't care whom he kills. If Xander felt like he owned a woman he >>> was no longer with, that he had a right to tell her what to do, and >>> a right to terrorize her (for that is what he did), then he is an >>> asshole. Get it? This is about Xander and Xander's actions and >>> the Xander's disgusting behavior. >> >> He attacked Spike, not Anya, get it? You might have something >> resembling an argument here if he had beaten up Anya or if the >> role Spike filled had been played by a human. > > Any human who whomped on Spike knowing he couldn't fight back seems to > be a bit ethically-challenged. Xander beat on a guy he knew couldn't > hit back. It's like defanging and declawing an animal that used to > attack people then kicking and beating that animal even though it's > no longer capable of hurting anyone. It's not only immoral but it's > also cowardly. Xander never would have tried whomping on Spike if he > were able to defend himself. > > My take on the vampires in the show was that they were little more > than animals. Up until AtS threw in the (rather unbelievable) notion > that they could choose not to attack (Harmony), it was clear they > simply were creatures of destruction. They had no conscience or > morality. They did what their instincts drove them to do just like a > cat might capture a mouse and "play" with it (which can be seen as > torture) then eventually kill and eat it. Buffy essentially put down > dangerous animals so they couldn't hurt people. > > The humans have a moral compass and should know better than to beat > on a defenseless animal even if that animal would kill them if it had > a chance. Xander beating on Spike (and in many cases Buffy beating on > him) made me cringe because they were simply hitting him for some > sort of gratification (payback? vengeance?) or a means of releasing > frustration. Humans ought to act better than that and are perfectly > capable of doing better than that. That has been my argument all along. I guess some people are so bloodthirsty, however, that they just want any excuse to slaughter -- AND they want to make it morally ok. Nothing like cheering on a strong hero who brutalizes the defenseless weak just because the defenseless are "evil" -- despite having been quite decent for a long time. Oh, no, there is NEVER anything wrong with killing people violently as long as those people deserve it -- you know, if they are other-than-human, or something. I can think of some people in history who thought like that. > > Orchid -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-18 14:00:31+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


alphakitten wrote: > DJensen wrote: >> alphakitten wrote: >> >>> IMHO, when Spike became someone they were comfortable fighting side >>> by side with, comfortable entrusting with Dawn, he ceased to be >>> someone they could kill on a whim with moral impunity. >> >> >> Considering that Dawn could have dusted him with a tooth pick if she >> felt threatened, that's really not much of an endorsement. >> > > > > > They trusted him to PROTECT her. To risk his life for her. Which he > did. And more than once. I can't fathom a moral perspective where > that fails to earn him the right to not be staked for no legitimate > reason. Eh -- they just want the thrill of seeing bloody murder and having it be morally right. See Hitler. > > > ~Angel -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-18 14:45:23-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (reldevik@usa.net)


Jake <wh@ever.com> wrote in message news:<4033A65C.241BA786@ever.com>... > Clairel wrote: > > > > "Xavier Sloane" <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<CG6Xb.2493$tL3.2355@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>... > > > "Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message > > > news:120220042230187563%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com... > > > > In article <y2RWb.1608$tL3.367@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > > > Xavier Sloane <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > She jumped > > > > > in the sack with the first guy she saw, which makes her kind of a skank > if > > > > > you ask me > > > > > > > > We were on a break. - Ross Gellar > > > > > > Yeah...he was kind of a he-skank if you ask me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not > > > saying that what Anya did was unforgiveable, but she deserved the verbal > > > raking she got. She had every reason to feel really, really, really bad > > > about what she'd done. > > > > --I disagree. As a single, unattached consenting adult she had > > absolutely no reason to feel bad about what she had done. And I was > > glad she stood up to Xander and pointed that out. > > > > If you listen to what Anya says to Spike during the scene where > > they're drinking and talking together, it's clear Anya is very > > insecure; Xander has totally torn down her self-esteem by what she > > perceives as his rejection of her. (I'm not concerned with Xander's > > reasons for calling off the wedding--his concern for their future, for > > Anya's safety, etc.--I'm only concerned with how it all seems from > > Anya's POV.) Anya needed reassurance, needed to feel like a desirable > > woman again. Spike gave her that reassurance. As she later told > > Xander herself, Anya was seeking out comfort, not revenge. It's not > > as if she had plans to screw Spike and then flaunt the fact in > > Xander's face. She had no idea that she and Spike were being spied > > on. > > > > And I still say that a person who accidentally sees something private > > being transmitted by a villain's spy-camera is honor bound to ignore > > what they have seen. > > > > But aside from the question of whether Anya deserved a verbal raking, > > it's insane to say that Spike (also a single, unattached consenting > > adult) deserved a physical axing for a private encounter with a > > consenting partner. It's sickening that anyone would actually cheer > > Xander on when Xander attacked Spike. > > > > That was just about Xander's lowest moment ever on the series--the > > only instance equalling it was when he trespassed in Buffy's house and > > burst through a closed bathroom door to interrupt what he thought was > > a sexy bathroom tryst between Spike and Buffy. What would he have > > done if he had found them together naked and intertwined, as he > > thought he would? Scolded them for going about their private affairs > > in a private dwelling behind closed doors? Why should they listen to > > him? Why should Xander have any say over the private lives of others? > > You're completely forgetting the whole 'leaving her at the altar' > thing. How could he get any lower than that? --Are you addressing me? I don't know how you could say I forgot it, when that's what I started out with. Here are my words from above: "...it's clear Anya is very insecure; Xander has totally torn down her self-esteem by what she perceives as his rejection of her. (I'm not concerned with Xander's reasons for calling off the wedding--his concern for their future, for Anya's safety, etc.--I'm only concerned with how it all seems from Anya's POV.)" > Xander was never a favorite of mine from the start. I thought of him as > a total lamo. But then somewhere around "The Zeppo", he started getting > better and I started to cut him some slack. > > But to ask a lady to marry you and then leave her at the altar? It > doesn't get any lower than that, short of outright physical abuse. --From his POV there were mitigating circumstances (the vision he had of himself in the future hitting Anya with a lethal blunt object). But Anya couldn't grasp that, so her feelings were still terribly hurt. > Xander - "Hey, Anya, I don't wanna marry you but can we still boink?" > > Yeah, he's a real winner. --Well, that's a bit harsh, perhaps. He said he wanted to get married someday, but just wasn't ready. But to Anya I'm sure his words came across as what you wrote. Xander wasn't intentionally jerking Anya around by proposing to her and then leaving her at the altar. It just worked out that way, and it was in large part prompted by her vengeance demon past. The guy from Chicago who caused all the trouble was one of Anya's victims. In the Anya-Xander conflict there are things to be said on both sides. My biggest concern is that Xander had absolutely no business attacking an ally with an axe, just because of sexual jealousy, when he had left Anya a single, unattached woman. And I don't care if the guy Xander attacked was vampire or human--he had no business doing it. Xander had no business reacting to what he saw on the spy camera in any way whatsoever. Clairel

2004-02-18 16:46:31-06:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Thirsty Viking <john_doerter@hotmail.com>)


"nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:SiQYb.149547$cM1.29055973@twister.nyc.rr.com... > Sillyman@famous.com wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:55:11 GMT, "nimue" > > <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Spike is fictional, but if you are going to apply real world standards > > to the Buffyverse then you have to acknowledge that he was a murderous > > monster. The idea of Anya (or anyone) letting that soul less monster > > lay hands on her should sicken anyone. Buffy was certainly ashamed, > > and she was right to be. Anya the 1000+ year old reformed vengence DEMON. I believe she had boinked worse in her day... And of course buffy was ashamed.... She was ashamed of the manner in which she was having sex, Ashamed that she didn't really love Spike and was using him Ashamed that she had concealed it all from her best friends. The Fact of who Spike was had less to do with Buffy's shame than who Buffy was at that point in time. > > Well, as I said earlier, some things can apply to the real world, others > can't. I don't think we can draw a parallel between vampires and serial > killers because serial killers ARE human, whether we like it or not. When > Xander, the most human of all the humans in the show (that is, he has no > special powers) acts in a way I find frightening and disgusting in humans, > it seems real -- it seems tranlatable (if that's a word) to real life. When > Buffy and Spike are pounding the crap out of each other, I cannot make a > direct comparison. yeah in the reall world it would have involved hospitals and police, between those two it was merely foreplay.

2004-02-18 17:25:06+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3eKYb.56482$Lp.23226@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > alphakitten wrote: > > DJensen wrote: > >> alphakitten wrote: > >> > >>> IMHO, when Spike became someone they were comfortable fighting side > >>> by side with, comfortable entrusting with Dawn, he ceased to be > >>> someone they could kill on a whim with moral impunity. > >> > >> > >> Considering that Dawn could have dusted him with a tooth pick if she > >> felt threatened, that's really not much of an endorsement. > > They trusted him to PROTECT her. To risk his life for her. Which he > > did. And more than once. I can't fathom a moral perspective where > > that fails to earn him the right to not be staked for no legitimate > > reason. > > Eh -- they just want the thrill of seeing bloody murder and having it be > morally right. We've already been through why killing Spike can't be murder.

2004-02-18 17:28:53+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <1g9d7dn.2d28vl1kqip6yN%orchid@nospamcsonline.net>, orchid@nospamcsonline.net (Orchid) wrote: > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > > > nimue wrote: > > > DJensen wrote: > > >>The same chipped vampire that tried draining Willow, sided with > > >>Adam, nearly killed Riley, tried raping Buffy, and started > > >>beating her when he found out he could? That one? He's a saint! > > >>Yeah, let's keep him and hate the guy who has always seen the > > >>inevitable badness of vampire boyfriends. > > > > > > I think anyone who kills out of possessive rage is an asshole. I > > > don't care whom he kills. If Xander felt like he owned a woman he was no longer > > > with, that he had a right to tell her what to do, and a right to terrorize > > > her (for that is what he did), then he is an asshole. Get it? This is > > > about Xander and Xander's actions and the Xander's disgusting behavior. > > > > He attacked Spike, not Anya, get it? You might have something > > resembling an argument here if he had beaten up Anya or if the > > role Spike filled had been played by a human. > > Any human who whomped on Spike knowing he couldn't fight back seems to > be a bit ethically-challenged. Xander beat on a guy he knew couldn't hit > back. It's like defanging and declawing an animal that used to attack > people then kicking and beating that animal even though it's no longer > capable of hurting anyone. Except Spike *wasn't* incapable of hurting anyone. He proved that quite nicely when he teamed up with Adam and conspired to kill them all, his chip notwithstanding.

2004-02-18 17:29:59+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <rdKYb.56475$Lp.5272@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > Orchid wrote: > > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > > > >> nimue wrote: > >>> DJensen wrote: > >>>> The same chipped vampire that tried draining Willow, sided with > >>>> Adam, nearly killed Riley, tried raping Buffy, and started > >>>> beating her when he found out he could? That one? He's a saint! > >>>> Yeah, let's keep him and hate the guy who has always seen the > >>>> inevitable badness of vampire boyfriends. > >>> > >>> I think anyone who kills out of possessive rage is an asshole. I > >>> don't care whom he kills. If Xander felt like he owned a woman he > >>> was no longer with, that he had a right to tell her what to do, and > >>> a right to terrorize her (for that is what he did), then he is an > >>> asshole. Get it? This is about Xander and Xander's actions and > >>> the Xander's disgusting behavior. > >> > >> He attacked Spike, not Anya, get it? You might have something > >> resembling an argument here if he had beaten up Anya or if the > >> role Spike filled had been played by a human. > > > > Any human who whomped on Spike knowing he couldn't fight back seems to > > be a bit ethically-challenged. Xander beat on a guy he knew couldn't > > hit back. It's like defanging and declawing an animal that used to > > attack people then kicking and beating that animal even though it's > > no longer capable of hurting anyone. It's not only immoral but it's > > also cowardly. Xander never would have tried whomping on Spike if he > > were able to defend himself. > > > > My take on the vampires in the show was that they were little more > > than animals. Up until AtS threw in the (rather unbelievable) notion > > that they could choose not to attack (Harmony), it was clear they > > simply were creatures of destruction. They had no conscience or > > morality. They did what their instincts drove them to do just like a > > cat might capture a mouse and "play" with it (which can be seen as > > torture) then eventually kill and eat it. Buffy essentially put down > > dangerous animals so they couldn't hurt people. > > > > The humans have a moral compass and should know better than to beat > > on a defenseless animal even if that animal would kill them if it had > > a chance. Xander beating on Spike (and in many cases Buffy beating on > > him) made me cringe because they were simply hitting him for some > > sort of gratification (payback? vengeance?) or a means of releasing > > frustration. Humans ought to act better than that and are perfectly > > capable of doing better than that. > > That has been my argument all along. No, your argument all along was that Xander was a jealous jerk. That's a completely different argument than the one presented above.

2004-02-18 17:44:13+11:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <4032443D.3020903@netscape.net>, alphakitten > <alphakittenx@netscape.net> wrote: > > >>DJensen wrote: >> >>>nimue wrote: >>> >>> >>>>DJensen wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>nimue wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy, >>>>>>possessiveness, and sexual rage. >>>>> > >>>>>How many vampires did Buffy murder over the years? >>>> > >>>>What does that have to do with anything? Buffy was the Slayer, and >>>>when she killed vamps, she did so because she was Called to. Doesn't it bother >>> >>> >>>So if anyone but a Slayer kills a vampire, they're... wrong? >> > >>No, if someone kills a chipped vampire who's been helping their side, > > > And also periodically trying to kill them all. IMHO, when Spike became someone they were comfortable fighting side by side with, comfortable entrusting with Dawn, he ceased to be someone they could kill on a whim with moral impunity. ~Angel

2004-02-18 18:01:45-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Jake <wh@ever.com>)


Clairel wrote: > > Jake <wh@ever.com> wrote in message news:<4033A65C.241BA786@ever.com>... > > Clairel wrote: > > > > > > "Xavier Sloane" <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<CG6Xb.2493$tL3.2355@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>... > > > > "Mark Nobles" <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message > > > > news:120220042230187563%cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com... > > > > > In article <y2RWb.1608$tL3.367@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > > > > > Xavier Sloane <xavier_sloane@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > She jumped > > > > > > in the sack with the first guy she saw, which makes her kind of a skank > > if > > > > > > you ask me > > > > > > > > > > We were on a break. - Ross Gellar > > > > > > > > Yeah...he was kind of a he-skank if you ask me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not > > > > saying that what Anya did was unforgiveable, but she deserved the verbal > > > > raking she got. She had every reason to feel really, really, really bad > > > > about what she'd done. > > > > > > --I disagree. As a single, unattached consenting adult she had > > > absolutely no reason to feel bad about what she had done. And I was > > > glad she stood up to Xander and pointed that out. > > > > > > If you listen to what Anya says to Spike during the scene where > > > they're drinking and talking together, it's clear Anya is very > > > insecure; Xander has totally torn down her self-esteem by what she > > > perceives as his rejection of her. (I'm not concerned with Xander's > > > reasons for calling off the wedding--his concern for their future, for > > > Anya's safety, etc.--I'm only concerned with how it all seems from > > > Anya's POV.) Anya needed reassurance, needed to feel like a desirable > > > woman again. Spike gave her that reassurance. As she later told > > > Xander herself, Anya was seeking out comfort, not revenge. It's not > > > as if she had plans to screw Spike and then flaunt the fact in > > > Xander's face. She had no idea that she and Spike were being spied > > > on. > > > > > > And I still say that a person who accidentally sees something private > > > being transmitted by a villain's spy-camera is honor bound to ignore > > > what they have seen. > > > > > > But aside from the question of whether Anya deserved a verbal raking, > > > it's insane to say that Spike (also a single, unattached consenting > > > adult) deserved a physical axing for a private encounter with a > > > consenting partner. It's sickening that anyone would actually cheer > > > Xander on when Xander attacked Spike. > > > > > > That was just about Xander's lowest moment ever on the series--the > > > only instance equalling it was when he trespassed in Buffy's house and > > > burst through a closed bathroom door to interrupt what he thought was > > > a sexy bathroom tryst between Spike and Buffy. What would he have > > > done if he had found them together naked and intertwined, as he > > > thought he would? Scolded them for going about their private affairs > > > in a private dwelling behind closed doors? Why should they listen to > > > him? Why should Xander have any say over the private lives of others? > > > > You're completely forgetting the whole 'leaving her at the altar' > > thing. How could he get any lower than that? > > --Are you addressing me? I don't know how you could say I forgot it, > when that's what I started out with. Here are my words from above: > "...it's clear Anya is very insecure; Xander has totally torn down her > self-esteem by what she perceives as his rejection of her. (I'm not > concerned with Xander's reasons for calling off the wedding--his > concern for their future, for Anya's safety, etc.--I'm only concerned > with how it all seems from Anya's POV.)" My point was that his reaction to Spike was no worse than what he'd already done: ask Anya to marry him then leave her at the altar. I *am* concerned about his reason for doing that -- it amounts to being a scared little boy with delusions of manhood. > > > Xander was never a favorite of mine from the start. I thought of him as > > a total lamo. But then somewhere around "The Zeppo", he started getting > > better and I started to cut him some slack. > > > > But to ask a lady to marry you and then leave her at the altar? It > > doesn't get any lower than that, short of outright physical abuse. > > --From his POV there were mitigating circumstances (the vision he had > of himself in the future hitting Anya with a lethal blunt object). > But Anya couldn't grasp that, so her feelings were still terribly > hurt. It wasn't Anya's obligation to make sense of Xander's nonsense. The vision was revealed to be a fake. He just wanted any lame excuse to back out and he took it. The hallmark of the born loser. > > > Xander - "Hey, Anya, I don't wanna marry you but can we still boink?" > > > > Yeah, he's a real winner. > > --Well, that's a bit harsh, perhaps. He said he wanted to get married > someday, but just wasn't ready. But to Anya I'm sure his words came > across as what you wrote. > > Xander wasn't intentionally jerking Anya around by proposing to her > and then leaving her at the altar. It just worked out that way, and > it was in large part prompted by her vengeance demon past. The guy > from Chicago who caused all the trouble was one of Anya's victims. In > the Anya-Xander conflict there are things to be said on both sides. > > My biggest concern is that Xander had absolutely no business attacking > an ally with an axe, just because of sexual jealousy, when he had left > Anya a single, unattached woman. And I don't care if the guy Xander > attacked was vampire or human--he had no business doing it. Xander > had no business reacting to what he saw on the spy camera in any way > whatsoever. > It seems like you're complaining about Xander's reaction while shrugging off the root cause of it. It's all of a piece.

2004-02-18 19:00:34+09:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (orchid@nospamcsonline.net)


DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > nimue wrote: > > DJensen wrote: > >>The same chipped vampire that tried draining Willow, sided with > >>Adam, nearly killed Riley, tried raping Buffy, and started > >>beating her when he found out he could? That one? He's a saint! > >>Yeah, let's keep him and hate the guy who has always seen the > >>inevitable badness of vampire boyfriends. > > > > I think anyone who kills out of possessive rage is an asshole. I don't care > > whom he kills. If Xander felt like he owned a woman he was no longer with, > > that he had a right to tell her what to do, and a right to terrorize her > > (for that is what he did), then he is an asshole. Get it? This is about > > Xander and Xander's actions and the Xander's disgusting behavior. > > He attacked Spike, not Anya, get it? You might have something > resembling an argument here if he had beaten up Anya or if the > role Spike filled had been played by a human. Any human who whomped on Spike knowing he couldn't fight back seems to be a bit ethically-challenged. Xander beat on a guy he knew couldn't hit back. It's like defanging and declawing an animal that used to attack people then kicking and beating that animal even though it's no longer capable of hurting anyone. It's not only immoral but it's also cowardly. Xander never would have tried whomping on Spike if he were able to defend himself. My take on the vampires in the show was that they were little more than animals. Up until AtS threw in the (rather unbelievable) notion that they could choose not to attack (Harmony), it was clear they simply were creatures of destruction. They had no conscience or morality. They did what their instincts drove them to do just like a cat might capture a mouse and "play" with it (which can be seen as torture) then eventually kill and eat it. Buffy essentially put down dangerous animals so they couldn't hurt people. The humans have a moral compass and should know better than to beat on a defenseless animal even if that animal would kill them if it had a chance. Xander beating on Spike (and in many cases Buffy beating on him) made me cringe because they were simply hitting him for some sort of gratification (payback? vengeance?) or a means of releasing frustration. Humans ought to act better than that and are perfectly capable of doing better than that. Orchid

2004-02-18 19:55:11+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


DJensen wrote: > nimue wrote: > >> That has been my argument all along. I guess some people are so >> bloodthirsty, however, that they just want any excuse to slaughter >> -- AND they want to make it morally ok. Nothing like cheering on a >> strong hero who brutalizes the defenseless weak just because the >> defenseless are "evil" -- despite having been quite decent for a >> long time. Oh, no, there is NEVER anything wrong with killing >> people violently as long as those people deserve it -- you know, if >> they are other-than-human, or something. I can think of some people >> in history who thought like that. > > Nice ad hom there. Shoe fits.... -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-18 20:42:04+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Sillyman@famous.com)


On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:55:11 GMT, "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: >DJensen wrote: >> nimue wrote: >> >>> That has been my argument all along. I guess some people are so >>> bloodthirsty, however, that they just want any excuse to slaughter >>> -- AND they want to make it morally ok. Nothing like cheering on a >>> strong hero who brutalizes the defenseless weak just because the >>> defenseless are "evil" -- despite having been quite decent for a >>> long time. Oh, no, there is NEVER anything wrong with killing >>> people violently as long as those people deserve it -- you know, if >>> they are other-than-human, or something. I can think of some people >>> in history who thought like that. >> >> Nice ad hom there. > >Shoe fits.... Heh. . . s'funny. You don't even try to deny you are making an ad hominem attack. You completely misrepresent your opponents position and you're smug about it too. If people deserve to be killed violently (I can't think of a lot of examples at the moment, but let's say they are out there), then, well, there IS nothing wrong with killing them. And the best time to brutalise evil is when it's weak. When evil is strong it's going to brutalise YOU. Spike wasn't decent. He was chipped! He was a soulless monster! Dust him! Jesus Murphy, just because you have a crush on Marsters doesn't mean you have to turn your thinking off. If you found out that some woman you knew was visiting Scott Peterson in his cell to bump uglies with him, you wouldn't be ranting about consenting adults, you'd do everything you could to make it stop. Spike is fictional, but if you are going to apply real world standards to the Buffyverse then you have to acknowledge that he was a murderous monster. The idea of Anya (or anyone) letting that soul less monster lay hands on her should sicken anyone. Buffy was certainly ashamed, and she was right to be.

2004-02-18 20:55:14+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


Sillyman@famous.com wrote: > On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:55:11 GMT, "nimue" > <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> DJensen wrote: >>> nimue wrote: >>> >>>> That has been my argument all along. I guess some people are so >>>> bloodthirsty, however, that they just want any excuse to slaughter >>>> -- AND they want to make it morally ok. Nothing like cheering on a >>>> strong hero who brutalizes the defenseless weak just because the >>>> defenseless are "evil" -- despite having been quite decent for a >>>> long time. Oh, no, there is NEVER anything wrong with killing >>>> people violently as long as those people deserve it -- you know, >>>> if they are other-than-human, or something. I can think of some >>>> people in history who thought like that. >>> >>> Nice ad hom there. >> >> Shoe fits.... > > Heh. . . s'funny. You don't even try to deny you are making an ad > hominem attack. I was. Why would I like? >You completely misrepresent your opponents position > and you're smug about it too. Oh, no, I don't think I misrepresented him or it at all. > > If people deserve to be killed violently (I can't think of a lot of > examples at the moment, but let's say they are out there), then, well, > there IS nothing wrong with killing them. And the best time to > brutalise evil is when it's weak. When evil is strong it's going to > brutalise YOU. Um -- I was talking about fascist societies that believe that certain populations are subhumans and deserve to be killed violently. I mean -- you obviously did not understand what I was saying, or maybe you really do think that some groups of people (the conflict between the Hutus and Tutsis comes to mind) ARE evil and shoudl be eradicated. Scary. The "Brownskirts: Fascism, Christianity, and the Eternal Demon" essay by Neal King appears in _Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy: Fear and Trembling in Sunnydale_ and it addresses the issue of fascism in Buffy. You should really check it out. > > Spike wasn't decent. He was chipped! He was a soulless monster! Dust > him! Jesus Murphy, just because you have a crush on Marsters doesn't > mean you have to turn your thinking off. Sorry. He protected Dawn, he fought with the Scoobies, he would rather die than reveal that Dawn was the Key -- the way he was presented said a WHOLE lot more than "soulless monster." Can't you see that. No, you can't. > > If you found out that some woman you knew was visiting Scott Peterson > in his cell to bump uglies with him, you wouldn't be ranting about > consenting adults, you'd do everything you could to make it stop. Yes. That real life situation has no direct parallel in the Buffyverse. > Spike is fictional, but if you are going to apply real world standards > to the Buffyverse then you have to acknowledge that he was a murderous > monster. The idea of Anya (or anyone) letting that soul less monster > lay hands on her should sicken anyone. Buffy was certainly ashamed, > and she was right to be. Well, as I said earlier, some things can apply to the real world, others can't. I don't think we can draw a parallel between vampires and serial killers because serial killers ARE human, whether we like it or not. When Xander, the most human of all the humans in the show (that is, he has no special powers) acts in a way I find frightening and disgusting in humans, it seems real -- it seems tranlatable (if that's a word) to real life. When Buffy and Spike are pounding the crap out of each other, I cannot make a direct comparison. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-18 21:52:57+11:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net>)


DJensen wrote: > alphakitten wrote: > >> IMHO, when Spike became someone they were comfortable fighting side by >> side with, comfortable entrusting with Dawn, he ceased to be someone >> they could kill on a whim with moral impunity. > > > Considering that Dawn could have dusted him with a tooth pick if she > felt threatened, that's really not much of an endorsement. > They trusted him to PROTECT her. To risk his life for her. Which he did. And more than once. I can't fathom a moral perspective where that fails to earn him the right to not be staked for no legitimate reason. ~Angel

2004-02-18 21:53:50+11:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net>)


Orchid wrote: > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > > >>nimue wrote: >> >>>DJensen wrote: >>> >>>>The same chipped vampire that tried draining Willow, sided with >>>>Adam, nearly killed Riley, tried raping Buffy, and started >>>>beating her when he found out he could? That one? He's a saint! >>>>Yeah, let's keep him and hate the guy who has always seen the >>>>inevitable badness of vampire boyfriends. >>> >>>I think anyone who kills out of possessive rage is an asshole. I don't care >>>whom he kills. If Xander felt like he owned a woman he was no longer with, >>>that he had a right to tell her what to do, and a right to terrorize her >>>(for that is what he did), then he is an asshole. Get it? This is about >>>Xander and Xander's actions and the Xander's disgusting behavior. >> >>He attacked Spike, not Anya, get it? You might have something >>resembling an argument here if he had beaten up Anya or if the >>role Spike filled had been played by a human. > > > Any human who whomped on Spike knowing he couldn't fight back seems to > be a bit ethically-challenged. Xander beat on a guy he knew couldn't hit > back. It's like defanging and declawing an animal that used to attack > people then kicking and beating that animal even though it's no longer > capable of hurting anyone. It's not only immoral but it's also cowardly. > Xander never would have tried whomping on Spike if he were able to > defend himself. > > My take on the vampires in the show was that they were little more than > animals. Up until AtS threw in the (rather unbelievable) notion that > they could choose not to attack (Harmony), it was clear they simply were > creatures of destruction. They had no conscience or morality. They did > what their instincts drove them to do just like a cat might capture a > mouse and "play" with it (which can be seen as torture) then eventually > kill and eat it. Buffy essentially put down dangerous animals so they > couldn't hurt people. > > The humans have a moral compass and should know better than to beat on a > defenseless animal even if that animal would kill them if it had a > chance. Xander beating on Spike (and in many cases Buffy beating on him) > made me cringe because they were simply hitting him for some sort of > gratification (payback? vengeance?) or a means of releasing frustration. > Humans ought to act better than that and are perfectly capable of doing > better than that. > > Orchid That was awesome! ~Angel

2004-02-19 01:10:08-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (wikke@webtv.net)


That may be reasonable when a couple have the "I'm not sure this is working, I think we need some space" type break-up. Not in this instance. Even if they had reconciled, screwing Spike was not something she had to feel guilty about. Anya didn't wait.<< How much time are you approximating passes between HB & Entrpoy? I would've thought several days. Besides, Anya and Xander have a conversation in Entropy _before_ she boinks Spike in which he again admits that he doesn't want to marry her. What the hell is she supposed to be waiting for!? Anya explains in season 7---it was "solace" not just sex ! Anna

2004-02-19 02:12:22+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (aej17DELETEME@comcast.net)


nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > snip >>>>> Xander's reasons for killing Spike are LOATHESOME. They are all >>>>> about Xander's jealousy, Xander's rage, Xander's humiliation. >>>> >>>> Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day there >>>> would still have been one less vampire in the world. >>> >>> And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy, >>> possessiveness, and sexual rage. >> >> No murder would have been committed at all. Murder is defined as the >> unlawful killing of a human being. A vampire is not a human being, >> therefore it's impossible to murder one, by definition. > > Ok, Xander, motivated only by possessive, sexual jealousy and out-of-control > rage, would have killed a creature. No matter how you look at it, it makes > Xander look awful. If you are looking for a real life analogy, you have to look farther afield. A man sees his girlfriend having sex with a dog. Man kills dog. That's a closer analogy. -- AE Jabbour "If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do." - Angel, "Epiphany"

2004-02-19 05:14:11+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


Orchid wrote: > <Sillyman@famous.com> wrote: > >> Spike wasn't decent. He was chipped! He was a soulless monster! Dust >> him! Jesus Murphy, just because you have a crush on Marsters doesn't >> mean you have to turn your thinking off. > > The point is that they didn't "dust him" but that they crippled him > and then beat him knowing he couldn't fight back. Killing him would > have been an appropriate response to his aggression while he was still > capable of being aggressive. Neutering him and then beating on him is > simply amoral. It's tantamount to torture. > > Orchid It sort of reminds me of those hideous, disgusting canned hunts -- you know, where a tame, once dangerous animal, such as a mountain lion, who has had its fangs (literally!) removed, is released, terrified, into some unknown place so some motherf*cking d*ckhead loser can shoot the harmless, frightened animal and feel like a big man. I don't know what motivates people like that, but I do think they are scum. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-19 05:17:23+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


Orchid wrote: > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > >> Orchid wrote: >>> DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: >>>> He attacked Spike, not Anya, get it? You might have something >>>> resembling an argument here if he had beaten up Anya or if the >>>> role Spike filled had been played by a human. >>> >>> Any human who whomped on Spike knowing he couldn't fight back seems >>> to be a bit ethically-challenged. Xander beat on a guy he knew >>> couldn't hit back. It's like defanging and declawing an animal that >>> used to attack people then kicking and beating that animal even >>> though it's no longer capable of hurting anyone. It's not only >>> immoral but it's also cowardly. Xander never would have tried >>> whomping on Spike if he were able to defend himself. >> [etc] >> >> Ethics are in the domain of reason, not emotion. Xander didn't >> calmly walk up and decided to pick on Spike because he could get >> away with it. He didn't put hours of thought into beating up >> Spike, he just went and did it. > > A lot of people kill other people in the heat of passion or in extreme > anger. Violence as a result of extreme emotion is no excuse to behave > unethically, at least not in most societies. > >> And again, it was Spike, not a person. > > My example wasn't about people but animals (an example that you > snipped in its entirety and didn't address). It's alright to abuse a > defenseless creature if it isn't human? If a viscious pitbull attacks > people, is it okay to pull out all of it's teeth, cut off it's > toenails and then keep kicking it and beating on it because it used > to attack people and still has the impulse to do so? > > This isn't about Spike or what he is. It's about Xander and what he > did as a human being with a choice to make. Humans have a choice to > behave ethically or unethically. Animals (and in the fantasy world, > vampires) don't have a choice as they act on instinct (or bloodlust). I have been saying this, and saying this, and saying this, but I don't think certain people want to listen. They don't seem to understand that Xander can and did act in a horrifying way -- they keep absolving Xander of all responsibility for his behavior because Spike is a vampire. It's ridiculous. Xander's behavior says a lot about him and his problems and has nothing to do with Spike at all. > > Orchid -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-19 06:15:11+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <1g9em9w.1hvlbghnabe3uN%orchid@nospamcsonline.net>, orchid@nospamcsonline.net (Orchid) wrote: > BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > In article <1g9d7dn.2d28vl1kqip6yN%orchid@nospamcsonline.net>, > > orchid@nospamcsonline.net (Orchid) wrote: > > > > > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > > > > > > > nimue wrote: > > > > > DJensen wrote: > > > > >>The same chipped vampire that tried draining Willow, sided with > > > > >>Adam, nearly killed Riley, tried raping Buffy, and started > > > > >>beating her when he found out he could? That one? He's a saint! > > > > >>Yeah, let's keep him and hate the guy who has always seen the > > > > >>inevitable badness of vampire boyfriends. > > > > > > > > > > I think anyone who kills out of possessive rage is an asshole. I > > > > > don't care whom he kills. If Xander felt like he owned a woman > > > > > he was no longer with, that he had a right to tell her what to do, > > > > > and a right to terrorize her (for that is what he did), then he is an > > > > > asshole. Get it? This is about Xander and Xander's actions and > > > > > the Xander's disgusting behavior. > > > > > > > > He attacked Spike, not Anya, get it? You might have something > > > > resembling an argument here if he had beaten up Anya or if the > > > > role Spike filled had been played by a human. > > > > > > Any human who whomped on Spike knowing he couldn't fight back seems > > > to be a bit ethically-challenged. Xander beat on a guy he knew couldn't > > > hit back. It's like defanging and declawing an animal that used to attack > > > people then kicking and beating that animal even though it's no > > > longer capable of hurting anyone. > > > > Except Spike *wasn't* incapable of hurting anyone. He proved that quite > > nicely when he teamed up with Adam and conspired to kill them all, his > > chip notwithstanding. > > > > From "This Year's Girl": > > > > SPIKE > > (to Xander & Giles) > > Tell you what I'll do, then. I'll head out, find this girl, tell her > > exactly where you are and then watch as she kills you. (off their look) > > Can't any one of your damn little Scooby Club at least try to remember > > that I hate you all? Just because I can't do the damage myself doesn't > > stop me from aiming a loose cannon your way. And here I thought the > > evening'd be dull. > > This is somewhat tangential to the situation originally addressed. He > was capable of manipulating and conspiring. He wasn't capable of harming > them physically on his own. I won't argue the semantics of "hurting" in > this case but if a sincere discussion of what constitutes "harm" and > appropriate punishment is desired, I'll certainly take part if I have > something thoughtful to add. However, it is another discussion entirely > (a much broader and more speculative one). I will say though that random > beatings of incapacitated individuals usually aren't the method of > choice when dealing with those who conspire to harm others. :-p > > Certainly, Spike was evil but it's not like he had a choice. I don't care if evil has a choice. It's evil. > Allowing Spike to live placed a moral burden on the people who decided > not to kill him. Huh? If they choose not to kill him they give up the right to kill him? > "Tit for tat" is not an ethically defensible position. I don't have a problem with eye-for-an-eye justice. Sometimes it's appropriate. The reason I'm not philosophically opposed to the death penalty.

2004-02-19 06:18:07+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <DFXYb.151279$cM1.29268049@twister.nyc.rr.com>, "nimue" <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > Orchid wrote: > > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > > > >> Orchid wrote: > >>> DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > >>>> He attacked Spike, not Anya, get it? You might have something > >>>> resembling an argument here if he had beaten up Anya or if the > >>>> role Spike filled had been played by a human. > >>> > >>> Any human who whomped on Spike knowing he couldn't fight back seems > >>> to be a bit ethically-challenged. Xander beat on a guy he knew > >>> couldn't hit back. It's like defanging and declawing an animal that > >>> used to attack people then kicking and beating that animal even > >>> though it's no longer capable of hurting anyone. It's not only > >>> immoral but it's also cowardly. Xander never would have tried > >>> whomping on Spike if he were able to defend himself. > >> [etc] > >> > >> Ethics are in the domain of reason, not emotion. Xander didn't > >> calmly walk up and decided to pick on Spike because he could get > >> away with it. He didn't put hours of thought into beating up > >> Spike, he just went and did it. > > > > A lot of people kill other people in the heat of passion or in extreme > > anger. Violence as a result of extreme emotion is no excuse to behave > > unethically, at least not in most societies. > > > >> And again, it was Spike, not a person. > > > > My example wasn't about people but animals (an example that you > > snipped in its entirety and didn't address). It's alright to abuse a > > defenseless creature if it isn't human? If a viscious pitbull attacks > > people, is it okay to pull out all of it's teeth, cut off it's > > toenails and then keep kicking it and beating on it because it used > > to attack people and still has the impulse to do so? > > > > This isn't about Spike or what he is. It's about Xander and what he > > did as a human being with a choice to make. Humans have a choice to > > behave ethically or unethically. Animals (and in the fantasy world, > > vampires) don't have a choice as they act on instinct (or bloodlust). > > I have been saying this, and saying this, and saying this, but I don't > think certain people want to listen. They don't seem to understand that Xander > can and did act in a horrifying way Hardly "horrifying". He may have acted badly but your description of it is pure melodrama. > they keep absolving Xander of all > responsibility for his behavior because Spike is a vampire. No, I'm just not gonna cry about Spike being dead, had Xander killed him. That's hardly "absolving" Xander.

2004-02-19 13:55:50+09:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (orchid@nospamcsonline.net)


<Sillyman@famous.com> wrote: > Spike wasn't decent. He was chipped! He was a soulless monster! Dust > him! Jesus Murphy, just because you have a crush on Marsters doesn't > mean you have to turn your thinking off. The point is that they didn't "dust him" but that they crippled him and then beat him knowing he couldn't fight back. Killing him would have been an appropriate response to his aggression while he was still capable of being aggressive. Neutering him and then beating on him is simply amoral. It's tantamount to torture. Orchid

2004-02-19 13:55:51+09:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (orchid@nospamcsonline.net)


DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > Orchid wrote: > > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > >>He attacked Spike, not Anya, get it? You might have something > >>resembling an argument here if he had beaten up Anya or if the > >>role Spike filled had been played by a human. > > > > Any human who whomped on Spike knowing he couldn't fight back seems to > > be a bit ethically-challenged. Xander beat on a guy he knew couldn't hit > > back. It's like defanging and declawing an animal that used to attack > > people then kicking and beating that animal even though it's no longer > > capable of hurting anyone. It's not only immoral but it's also cowardly. > > Xander never would have tried whomping on Spike if he were able to > > defend himself. > [etc] > > Ethics are in the domain of reason, not emotion. Xander didn't > calmly walk up and decided to pick on Spike because he could get > away with it. He didn't put hours of thought into beating up > Spike, he just went and did it. A lot of people kill other people in the heat of passion or in extreme anger. Violence as a result of extreme emotion is no excuse to behave unethically, at least not in most societies. > And again, it was Spike, not a person. My example wasn't about people but animals (an example that you snipped in its entirety and didn't address). It's alright to abuse a defenseless creature if it isn't human? If a viscious pitbull attacks people, is it okay to pull out all of it's teeth, cut off it's toenails and then keep kicking it and beating on it because it used to attack people and still has the impulse to do so? This isn't about Spike or what he is. It's about Xander and what he did as a human being with a choice to make. Humans have a choice to behave ethically or unethically. Animals (and in the fantasy world, vampires) don't have a choice as they act on instinct (or bloodlust). Orchid

2004-02-19 13:55:52+09:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (orchid@nospamcsonline.net)


BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > In article <1g9d7dn.2d28vl1kqip6yN%orchid@nospamcsonline.net>, > orchid@nospamcsonline.net (Orchid) wrote: > > > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > > > > > nimue wrote: > > > > DJensen wrote: > > > >>The same chipped vampire that tried draining Willow, sided with > > > >>Adam, nearly killed Riley, tried raping Buffy, and started > > > >>beating her when he found out he could? That one? He's a saint! > > > >>Yeah, let's keep him and hate the guy who has always seen the > > > >>inevitable badness of vampire boyfriends. > > > > > > > > I think anyone who kills out of possessive rage is an asshole. I > > > > don't care whom he kills. If Xander felt like he owned a woman he > > > > was no longer with, that he had a right to tell her what to do, and > > > > a right to terrorize her (for that is what he did), then he is an > > > > asshole. Get it? This is about Xander and Xander's actions and the > > > > Xander's disgusting behavior. > > > > > > He attacked Spike, not Anya, get it? You might have something > > > resembling an argument here if he had beaten up Anya or if the > > > role Spike filled had been played by a human. > > > > Any human who whomped on Spike knowing he couldn't fight back seems to > > be a bit ethically-challenged. Xander beat on a guy he knew couldn't hit > > back. It's like defanging and declawing an animal that used to attack > > people then kicking and beating that animal even though it's no longer > > capable of hurting anyone. > > Except Spike *wasn't* incapable of hurting anyone. He proved that quite > nicely when he teamed up with Adam and conspired to kill them all, his > chip notwithstanding. > > From "This Year's Girl": > > SPIKE > (to Xander & Giles) > Tell you what I'll do, then. I'll head out, find this girl, tell her > exactly where you are and then watch as she kills you. (off their look) > Can't any one of your damn little Scooby Club at least try to remember > that I hate you all? Just because I can't do the damage myself doesn't > stop me from aiming a loose cannon your way. And here I thought the > evening'd be dull. This is somewhat tangential to the situation originally addressed. He was capable of manipulating and conspiring. He wasn't capable of harming them physically on his own. I won't argue the semantics of "hurting" in this case but if a sincere discussion of what constitutes "harm" and appropriate punishment is desired, I'll certainly take part if I have something thoughtful to add. However, it is another discussion entirely (a much broader and more speculative one). I will say though that random beatings of incapacitated individuals usually aren't the method of choice when dealing with those who conspire to harm others. :-p Certainly, Spike was evil but it's not like he had a choice. He has no conscience and issues of right and wrong will always result in him choosing "wrong". They should kill Spike and be done with it or live with the consequences of letting him live as a crippled vampire but don't use his nature as an excuse for humans to behave amorally. Allowing Spike to live placed a moral burden on the people who decided not to kill him. In many cases, it could be observed that they weren't up to that burden and succumbed to heightened emotion or acted on visceral impulses rather than as morally advanced individuals. The logic seems to be that if someone (or "thing" in this case) is bad, it's okay to behave badly toward them. It's not. You are ethically no better than the creature you're dealing with (and have much less of an excuse in this case since the vampire acts on instinct and bloodlust and you act as a more thoughtful and capable human being). One may attempt to justify unethical behavior by blaming their behavior on the evil nature of the "victim" but one doesn't get an ethical pass simply because one is abusing a "bad" creature or person. Ethics aren't on a sliding scale according to who (or what in this case) you are dealing with. They are situational. Self-defense or defense of others is the only ethical reason for violence (unless you are a complete pacifist in which case there's no excuse). "Tit for tat" is not an ethically defensible position. Shari

2004-02-19 15:59:55-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (reldevik@usa.net)


aej17DELETEME@comcast.net (A.E. Jabbour) wrote in message news:<c11625$1bahvt$1@ID-137314.news.uni-berlin.de>... > nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote: > > snip > >>>>> Xander's reasons for killing Spike are LOATHESOME. They are all > >>>>> about Xander's jealousy, Xander's rage, Xander's humiliation. > >>>> > >>>> Oh, well. If he'd gone through with it, at the end of the day there > >>>> would still have been one less vampire in the world. > >>> > >>> And Xander would have been a man who murdered out of jealousy, > >>> possessiveness, and sexual rage. > >> > >> No murder would have been committed at all. Murder is defined as the > >> unlawful killing of a human being. A vampire is not a human being, > >> therefore it's impossible to murder one, by definition. > > > > Ok, Xander, motivated only by possessive, sexual jealousy and out-of-control > > rage, would have killed a creature. No matter how you look at it, it makes > > Xander look awful. > > If you are looking for a real life analogy, you have to look > farther afield. > > A man sees his girlfriend having sex with a dog. Man kills dog. > > That's a closer analogy. --You know what, A.E.? Forget everything I said about how maybe it's reasonable for you to stay around here as newsgroup historian. You're not doing any good here. Go away. Please. Clairel

2004-02-19 17:03:56-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


nimue wrote: > alphakitten wrote: >>They trusted him to PROTECT her. To risk his life for her. Which he >>did. And more than once. I can't fathom a moral perspective where >>that fails to earn him the right to not be staked for no legitimate >>reason. > > > Eh -- they just want the thrill of seeing bloody murder and having it be > morally right. See Hitler. And there's the Godwin for all to see. Your point has been defeated, thanks for playing. -- DJensen

2004-02-19 17:11:33-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


Orchid wrote: > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: >>Ethics are in the domain of reason, not emotion. Xander didn't >>calmly walk up and decided to pick on Spike because he could get >>away with it. He didn't put hours of thought into beating up >>Spike, he just went and did it. > > A lot of people kill other people in the heat of passion or in extreme > anger. Violence as a result of extreme emotion is no excuse to behave > unethically, at least not in most societies. We're still not talking about Xander beating up a person here. >>And again, it was Spike, not a person. > > My example wasn't about people but animals (an example that you snipped > in its entirety and didn't address). It's alright to abuse a defenseless > creature if it isn't human? If a viscious pitbull attacks people, is it > okay to pull out all of it's teeth, cut off it's toenails and then keep > kicking it and beating on it because it used to attack people and still > has the impulse to do so? I didn't address it because it has nothing to do with the situation we're talking about. Vampires are animals, vampires are demons, vampires are robots, whatever your interpretation is doesn't change Xander's state of mind at the time. And yes, if vicious pitbull attacks someone and to stop it you need to bash it's brains in with a brick and throw it in front of a speeding train and set fire to the spasming body to stop it from attacking anyone else, you are well within your right to save someone from an animal. We're not talking about a golly-gee-this'll-entertain-me bout of violence from Xander, so all these comparisons and allegations are pointless. > This isn't about Spike or what he is. It's about Xander and what he did > as a human being with a choice to make. Humans have a choice to behave > ethically or unethically. Animals (and in the fantasy world, vampires) > don't have a choice as they act on instinct (or bloodlust). He didn't make a choice, that part of his brain was not involved. -- DJensen

2004-02-19 17:22:00-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


Orchid wrote: > BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>From "This Year's Girl": >> >>SPIKE >>(to Xander & Giles) >>Tell you what I'll do, then. I'll head out, find this girl, tell her >>exactly where you are and then watch as she kills you. (off their look) >>Can't any one of your damn little Scooby Club at least try to remember >>that I hate you all? Just because I can't do the damage myself doesn't >>stop me from aiming a loose cannon your way. And here I thought the >>evening'd be dull. > Certainly, Spike was evil but it's not like he had a choice. He has no > conscience and issues of right and wrong will always result in him > choosing "wrong". They should kill Spike and be done with it or live > with the consequences of letting him live as a crippled vampire but > don't use his nature as an excuse for humans to behave amorally. So Spike doesn't have a choice but to be evil, but Xander, in a fit of rage, must have chosen to feel that way and lash out as he did? > Allowing Spike to live placed a moral burden on the people who decided > not to kill him. In many cases, it could be observed that they weren't > up to that burden and succumbed to heightened emotion or acted on > visceral impulses rather than as morally advanced individuals. Buffy is the one who decided to let Spike live, she bent over backwards (take that as you will) to excuse him multiple times. I don't recall Xander or Willow or Giles or Anya making any pledges to keep Spike around. > The logic seems to be that if someone (or "thing" in this case) is bad, > it's okay to behave badly toward them. It's not. You are ethically no > better than the creature you're dealing with (and have much less of an > excuse in this case since the vampire acts on instinct and bloodlust and > you act as a more thoughtful and capable human being). One may attempt > to justify unethical behavior by blaming their behavior on the evil > nature of the "victim" but one doesn't get an ethical pass simply > because one is abusing a "bad" creature or person. I can't stand the school of thought that says human beings are purely rational and do everything they do consciously and can see the consequences before they begin. This does not describe Xander at that moment on the sidewalk certainly, unless he became a Vulcan. > Ethics aren't on a sliding scale according to who (or what in this case) > you are dealing with. They are situational. Self-defense or defense of > others is the only ethical reason for violence (unless you are a > complete pacifist in which case there's no excuse). "Tit for tat" is not > an ethically defensible position. It would be unethical to allow Spike to live, given that even with a chip he posed a continued threat to everyone, including Dawn (the road to Buffy) and Buffy herself ("you came back wrong" punch punch). So yes, Xander was behaving unethically when he failed to kill Spike. -- DJensen

2004-02-19 17:23:24-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


nimue wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>He attacked Spike, not Anya, get it? You might have something >>resembling an argument here if he had beaten up Anya or if the >>role Spike filled had been played by a human. > > > Oh, you don't think that terrified and terrorized Anya? Please. Seeing > Xander come after the man you just slept with with an axe is deeply > frightening. Yeah -- that was meant for her, too. He didn't try to kill > her (although who knows what would have happened if he had been allowed to > continue to rage unchecked) but he sure did try to slaughter someone in her > presence, and that is very abusive, frightening behavior. You are offering melodrama in place of supporting argumentation. -- DJensen

2004-02-19 17:30:50-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


nimue wrote: > Sillyman@famous.com wrote: >>You completely misrepresent your opponents position >>and you're smug about it too. > > Oh, no, I don't think I misrepresented him or it at all. You don't think comparing me to Hitler (implied here and stated elsethread) was a misrepresentation? You think being able to justify the hypothetical death of a vampire on a tv show is really like justifying actual brutality against real people? Throughout this thread you've displayed a shocking lack of perspective. Television isn't real. -- DJensen

2004-02-19 17:32:08-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


Orchid wrote: > <Sillyman@famous.com> wrote: >>Spike wasn't decent. He was chipped! He was a soulless monster! Dust >>him! Jesus Murphy, just because you have a crush on Marsters doesn't >>mean you have to turn your thinking off. > > The point is that they didn't "dust him" but that they crippled him and > then beat him knowing he couldn't fight back. Killing him would have > been an appropriate response to his aggression while he was still > capable of being aggressive. Neutering him and then beating on him is > simply amoral. It's tantamount to torture. Blame the Initiative, not the Scoobies. -- DJensen

2004-02-19 18:55:55-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


Mark Nobles wrote: > nimue wrote: >>it is a metaphor > > Get it? It is not real life. You say so yourself. Then you turn right > around and ignore what you just said. > > It is a metaphor. It is *not* real life. It wasn't even a metaphor in the This is a Metaphor style we got in the earlier seasons of BtVS, it was a throw-away 3 minute scene. Domestive Abuse/Abusive Boyfriend was done in the second or third season I dimly recall -- if a viewer wants to see this scene as a redux or project their life onto the characters that's his or her perogative, but it certainly doesn't appear it was meant to be taken that way. -- DJensen

2004-02-19 19:05:11-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


nimue wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>I didn't address it because it has nothing to do with the >>situation we're talking about. Vampires are animals, vampires are >>demons, vampires are robots, whatever your interpretation is >>doesn't change Xander's state of mind at the time. >> >>And yes, if vicious pitbull attacks someone and to stop it you >>need to bash it's brains in with a brick and throw it in front of >>a speeding train and set fire to the spasming body to stop it >>from attacking anyone else, you are well within your right to >>save someone from an animal. > > If a vicious pitbull is attacking someone, yes, you can kill it to get it > off the person. However, if th pitbill is not attacking someone and indeed > no longer has the capacity to attack someone, you have no right to torture Spike still had the capacity to harm people, even if you exclude the influence of the FE over him later, so this argument is moot. > or kill it. If you do, and you give as your excuse, "Well, pitbulls are > vicious animals and I am just doing my job protecting the world when I kill > it," then we will all know that you are someone who needs to inflict pain > and violence and are just looking for an excuse. I remember a few months > ago, some wacko kidnapped and tortured a baby bear cub and his excuse was > that he did it to "protect the children." He siad he was taking care of > "the children" by making sure this bear did not grow up to be a killer. > Right. As I said, these comparisons and allegations are pointless. They simply have nothing to do with the situation. Spike was not a baby bear, innocent to the world with eyes the size of plates, clubbed into submission by some guy looking to get off on some gore, so stop making the comparisons. Spike was a killer and a schemer and a really crappy character. No matter how you slice it, I would have cheered his dusting. >>We're not talking about a golly-gee-this'll-entertain-me bout of >>violence from Xander, so all these comparisons and allegations >>are pointless. > > No. We are talking about someone who acted out of possessive rage and > jealousy. Not cool. In your opinion those were his motives, and even if I give you the benefit of the doubt on that it doesn't mean he chose to feel or react that way, >>He didn't make a choice, that part of his brain was not involved. > > Please. Xander made a choice. Everytime we act we make a choice. Go look up "instinct" and "emotion" and "human behaviour". -- DJensen

2004-02-19 19:50:04-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


nimue wrote: > DJensen wrote: > >>nimue wrote: >> >>>DJensen wrote: >>> >>>>I didn't address it because it has nothing to do with the >>>>situation we're talking about. Vampires are animals, vampires are >>>>demons, vampires are robots, whatever your interpretation is >>>>doesn't change Xander's state of mind at the time. >>>> >>>>And yes, if vicious pitbull attacks someone and to stop it you >>>>need to bash it's brains in with a brick and throw it in front of >>>>a speeding train and set fire to the spasming body to stop it >>>>from attacking anyone else, you are well within your right to >>>>save someone from an animal. >>> >>>If a vicious pitbull is attacking someone, yes, you can kill it to >>>get it off the person. However, if th pitbill is not attacking >>>someone and indeed no longer has the capacity to attack someone, you >>>have no right to torture >> >>Spike still had the capacity to harm people, even if you exclude >>the influence of the FE over him later, so this argument is moot. >> >> >>>or kill it. If you do, and you give as your excuse, "Well, pitbulls >>>are vicious animals and I am just doing my job protecting the world >>>when I kill it," then we will all know that you are someone who >>>needs to inflict pain and violence and are just looking for an >>>excuse. I remember a few months ago, some wacko kidnapped and >>>tortured a baby bear cub and his excuse was that he did it to >>>"protect the children." He siad he was taking care of "the >>>children" by making sure this bear did not grow up to be a killer. >>>Right. >> >>As I said, these comparisons and allegations are pointless. They >>simply have nothing to do with the situation. >> >>Spike was not a baby bear, innocent to the world with eyes the >>size of plates, clubbed into submission by some guy looking to >>get off on some gore, so stop making the comparisons. >> >>Spike was a killer and a schemer and a really crappy character. >>No matter how you slice it, I would have cheered his dusting. > > > You know, you can cheerSpike's dusting, but there is no way I can cheer on a > man, a human, who acts the way Xander did. Have you ever had a crazed > ex-boyfriend who thought he could dictate whom you slept with after you had > broken-up? Those kinds of people are NOT safe. I don't see how you can > excuse Xander's behavior. He and he alone is in charge of what he does -- > and he chose to act with incredible violence; he chose to terrorize Anya. He was not in charge of his complete mental faculties, that's how I "excuse" him. If you had been reading this thread you'd have figured that out. >>>No. We are talking about someone who acted out of possessive rage >>>and jealousy. Not cool. >> >>In your opinion those were his motives, and even if I give you >>the benefit of the doubt on that it doesn't mean he chose to feel >>or react that way, > > He CHOSE to act that way. We cannot really choose how we feel, but we CAN > choose how we act. He chose to act with violence, chose to let his jealous > rage take over. You've never heard of someone losing control in a moment of extreme emotion? That's how you act without choosing to. >>> He didn't make a choice, that part of his brain was not >>> involved. > >>>Please. Xander made a choice. Everytime we act we make a choice. >> >>Go look up "instinct" and "emotion" and "human behaviour". > > Of course it's human behavior. It's very bad human behavior. It's criminal > behavior from a human being who can CHOOSE how to act. People make this > choice in life ALL THE TIME. Then, innocent people wind up dead, and the > people who were so out of control, who couldn't get a grip on their > emotions, are locked away. They should be. We don't need people who > control themselves in society. Xander acted like one of those people. This is all very dry analysis with the benefit of hindsight, and therefore useless. You said he was acting out of rage, and then you say he chose to act that way. You can't have it both ways, either it was a decision he made or it was a blind reaction. If you want to paint Xander as a premeditated baby-bear torturer, over Spike no less, that's up to you. -- DJensen

2004-02-19 23:01:20+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


DJensen wrote: > Orchid wrote: >> DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: >>> Ethics are in the domain of reason, not emotion. Xander didn't >>> calmly walk up and decided to pick on Spike because he could get >>> away with it. He didn't put hours of thought into beating up >>> Spike, he just went and did it. >> >> A lot of people kill other people in the heat of passion or in >> extreme anger. Violence as a result of extreme emotion is no excuse >> to behave unethically, at least not in most societies. > > We're still not talking about Xander beating up a person here. > >>> And again, it was Spike, not a person. >> >> My example wasn't about people but animals (an example that you >> snipped in its entirety and didn't address). It's alright to abuse a >> defenseless creature if it isn't human? If a viscious pitbull >> attacks people, is it okay to pull out all of it's teeth, cut off >> it's toenails and then keep kicking it and beating on it because it >> used to attack people and still has the impulse to do so? > > I didn't address it because it has nothing to do with the > situation we're talking about. Vampires are animals, vampires are > demons, vampires are robots, whatever your interpretation is > doesn't change Xander's state of mind at the time. > > And yes, if vicious pitbull attacks someone and to stop it you > need to bash it's brains in with a brick and throw it in front of > a speeding train and set fire to the spasming body to stop it > from attacking anyone else, you are well within your right to > save someone from an animal. > If a vicious pitbull is attacking someone, yes, you can kill it to get it off the person. However, if th pitbill is not attacking someone and indeed no longer has the capacity to attack someone, you have no right to torture or kill it. If you do, and you give as your excuse, "Well, pitbulls are vicious animals and I am just doing my job protecting the world when I kill it," then we will all know that you are someone who needs to inflict pain and violence and are just looking for an excuse. I remember a few months ago, some wacko kidnapped and tortured a baby bear cub and his excuse was that he did it to "protect the children." He siad he was taking care of "the children" by making sure this bear did not grow up to be a killer. Right. > We're not talking about a golly-gee-this'll-entertain-me bout of > violence from Xander, so all these comparisons and allegations > are pointless. No. We are talking about someone who acted out of possessive rage and jealousy. Not cool. > >> This isn't about Spike or what he is. It's about Xander and what he >> did as a human being with a choice to make. Humans have a choice to >> behave ethically or unethically. Animals (and in the fantasy world, >> vampires) don't have a choice as they act on instinct (or bloodlust). > > He didn't make a choice, that part of his brain was not involved. Please. Xander made a choice. Everytime we act we make a choice. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-19 23:05:48+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


DJensen wrote: > Orchid wrote: >> BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> From "This Year's Girl": >>> >>> SPIKE >>> (to Xander & Giles) >>> Tell you what I'll do, then. I'll head out, find this girl, tell her >>> exactly where you are and then watch as she kills you. (off their >>> look) Can't any one of your damn little Scooby Club at least try to >>> remember that I hate you all? Just because I can't do the damage >>> myself doesn't stop me from aiming a loose cannon your way. And >>> here I thought the evening'd be dull. > >> Certainly, Spike was evil but it's not like he had a choice. He has >> no conscience and issues of right and wrong will always result in him >> choosing "wrong". They should kill Spike and be done with it or live >> with the consequences of letting him live as a crippled vampire but >> don't use his nature as an excuse for humans to behave amorally. > > So Spike doesn't have a choice but to be evil, but Xander, in a > fit of rage, must have chosen to feel that way and lash out as he > did? Xander is human. He does have a choice. Xander did NOT choose to FEEL the way he did, but he did choose to ACT the way he did. > >> Allowing Spike to live placed a moral burden on the people who >> decided not to kill him. In many cases, it could be observed that >> they weren't up to that burden and succumbed to heightened emotion >> or acted on visceral impulses rather than as morally advanced >> individuals. > > Buffy is the one who decided to let Spike live, she bent over > backwards (take that as you will) to excuse him multiple times. I > don't recall Xander or Willow or Giles or Anya making any pledges > to keep Spike around. > >> The logic seems to be that if someone (or "thing" in this case) is >> bad, it's okay to behave badly toward them. It's not. You are >> ethically no better than the creature you're dealing with (and have >> much less of an excuse in this case since the vampire acts on >> instinct and bloodlust and you act as a more thoughtful and capable >> human being). One may attempt to justify unethical behavior by >> blaming their behavior on the evil nature of the "victim" but one >> doesn't get an ethical pass simply because one is abusing a "bad" >> creature or person. > > I can't stand the school of thought that says human beings are > purely rational and do everything they do consciously and can see > the consequences before they begin. This does not describe Xander > at that moment on the sidewalk certainly, unless he became a Vulcan. No one is saying that. However, I think it's pretty easy to see that it might not be right to grab an axe and go on a rampage. > >> Ethics aren't on a sliding scale according to who (or what in this >> case) you are dealing with. They are situational. Self-defense or >> defense of others is the only ethical reason for violence (unless >> you are a complete pacifist in which case there's no excuse). "Tit >> for tat" is not an ethically defensible position. > > It would be unethical to allow Spike to live, given that even > with a chip he posed a continued threat to everyone, including > Dawn (the road to Buffy) and Buffy herself ("you came back wrong" > punch punch). So yes, Xander was behaving unethically when he > failed to kill Spike. Spike did not pose a continued threat to anyone, not anymore than Willow or Anya or Faith or anyone else did. He took care of Dawn and, oddly, took better care of Anya emotionally with their little conversation than anyone had until that point. Sure, they probably shouldn't have had sex, and they both regretted it (although Anya, at least, definitely had some tasty memories of the experience), but it really wasn't that big of a deal -- until Xander made it one. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-19 23:12:34+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Mark Nobles <cmn-nospam@houston.rr.com>)


nimue wrote: > DJensen wrote: > > nimue wrote: > >> Mark Nobles wrote: > >>> nimue wrote: > >>>> in real life > >>> > >>> and this qualification makes everything else you say pointless. > >> > >> You snipped way too much -- I have no idea what you are talking > >> about. > > > > Read upthread two posts -- your own post -- and figure it out. > > > > But if that's too much for you, he's saying you've disqualified > > your argument by appealing to "real life" when we're talking > > about a work of fantasy. > > I think the appeal of Buffy is that it is a metaphor for real life. > Although the Buffyverse is a fantasy world, and not everything can make a > direct translation, a lot can. We have all known prom queen types like > Cordelia, for example. That translates pretty easily. I think that > Xander's behavior is all too familiar in the real world, also. OK, this time I didn't clip anything. But I will quote one phrase, again the only one that matters. > it is a metaphor Get it? It is not real life. You say so yourself. Then you turn right around and ignore what you just said. It is a metaphor. It is *not* real life. Still not rocket surgery.

2004-02-20 00:33:27+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


DJensen wrote: > nimue wrote: >> DJensen wrote: >>> I didn't address it because it has nothing to do with the >>> situation we're talking about. Vampires are animals, vampires are >>> demons, vampires are robots, whatever your interpretation is >>> doesn't change Xander's state of mind at the time. >>> >>> And yes, if vicious pitbull attacks someone and to stop it you >>> need to bash it's brains in with a brick and throw it in front of >>> a speeding train and set fire to the spasming body to stop it >>> from attacking anyone else, you are well within your right to >>> save someone from an animal. >> >> If a vicious pitbull is attacking someone, yes, you can kill it to >> get it off the person. However, if th pitbill is not attacking >> someone and indeed no longer has the capacity to attack someone, you >> have no right to torture > > Spike still had the capacity to harm people, even if you exclude > the influence of the FE over him later, so this argument is moot. > >> or kill it. If you do, and you give as your excuse, "Well, pitbulls >> are vicious animals and I am just doing my job protecting the world >> when I kill it," then we will all know that you are someone who >> needs to inflict pain and violence and are just looking for an >> excuse. I remember a few months ago, some wacko kidnapped and >> tortured a baby bear cub and his excuse was that he did it to >> "protect the children." He siad he was taking care of "the >> children" by making sure this bear did not grow up to be a killer. >> Right. > > As I said, these comparisons and allegations are pointless. They > simply have nothing to do with the situation. > > Spike was not a baby bear, innocent to the world with eyes the > size of plates, clubbed into submission by some guy looking to > get off on some gore, so stop making the comparisons. > > Spike was a killer and a schemer and a really crappy character. > No matter how you slice it, I would have cheered his dusting. You know, you can cheerSpike's dusting, but there is no way I can cheer on a man, a human, who acts the way Xander did. Have you ever had a crazed ex-boyfriend who thought he could dictate whom you slept with after you had broken-up? Those kinds of people are NOT safe. I don't see how you can excuse Xander's behavior. He and he alone is in charge of what he does -- and he chose to act with incredible violence; he chose to terrorize Anya. > >>> We're not talking about a golly-gee-this'll-entertain-me bout of >>> violence from Xander, so all these comparisons and allegations >>> are pointless. >> >> No. We are talking about someone who acted out of possessive rage >> and jealousy. Not cool. > > In your opinion those were his motives, and even if I give you > the benefit of the doubt on that it doesn't mean he chose to feel > or react that way, He CHOSE to act that way. We cannot really choose how we feel, but we CAN choose how we act. He chose to act with violence, chose to let his jealous rage take over. >>> He didn't make a choice, that part of his brain was not involved. >> >> Please. Xander made a choice. Everytime we act we make a choice. > > Go look up "instinct" and "emotion" and "human behaviour". Of course it's human behavior. It's very bad human behavior. It's criminal behavior from a human being who can CHOOSE how to act. People make this choice in life ALL THE TIME. Then, innocent people wind up dead, and the people who were so out of control, who couldn't get a grip on their emotions, are locked away. They should be. We don't need people who control themselves in society. Xander acted like one of those people. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-20 02:27:44+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (aej17DELETEME@comcast.net)


Clairel <reldevik@usa.net> wrote: > > --You know what, A.E.? Forget everything I said about how maybe it's > reasonable for you to stay around here as newsgroup historian. > > You're not doing any good here. Go away. Please. > > Clairel You're a funny lady, Clairel. -- AE Jabbour "If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do." - Angel, "Epiphany"

2004-02-20 03:04:22+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


DJensen wrote: > nimue wrote: > >> DJensen wrote: >> >>> nimue wrote: >>> >>>> DJensen wrote: >>>> >>>>> I didn't address it because it has nothing to do with the >>>>> situation we're talking about. Vampires are animals, vampires are >>>>> demons, vampires are robots, whatever your interpretation is >>>>> doesn't change Xander's state of mind at the time. >>>>> >>>>> And yes, if vicious pitbull attacks someone and to stop it you >>>>> need to bash it's brains in with a brick and throw it in front of >>>>> a speeding train and set fire to the spasming body to stop it >>>>> from attacking anyone else, you are well within your right to >>>>> save someone from an animal. >>>> >>>> If a vicious pitbull is attacking someone, yes, you can kill it to >>>> get it off the person. However, if th pitbill is not attacking >>>> someone and indeed no longer has the capacity to attack someone, >>>> you have no right to torture >>> >>> Spike still had the capacity to harm people, even if you exclude >>> the influence of the FE over him later, so this argument is moot. >>> >>> >>>> or kill it. If you do, and you give as your excuse, "Well, >>>> pitbulls are vicious animals and I am just doing my job protecting >>>> the world when I kill it," then we will all know that you are >>>> someone who needs to inflict pain and violence and are just >>>> looking for an excuse. I remember a few months ago, some wacko >>>> kidnapped and tortured a baby bear cub and his excuse was that he >>>> did it to "protect the children." He siad he was taking care of >>>> "the children" by making sure this bear did not grow up to be a >>>> killer. Right. >>> >>> As I said, these comparisons and allegations are pointless. They >>> simply have nothing to do with the situation. >>> >>> Spike was not a baby bear, innocent to the world with eyes the >>> size of plates, clubbed into submission by some guy looking to >>> get off on some gore, so stop making the comparisons. >>> >>> Spike was a killer and a schemer and a really crappy character. >>> No matter how you slice it, I would have cheered his dusting. >> >> >> You know, you can cheerSpike's dusting, but there is no way I can >> cheer on a man, a human, who acts the way Xander did. Have you ever >> had a crazed ex-boyfriend who thought he could dictate whom you >> slept with after you had broken-up? Those kinds of people are NOT >> safe. I don't see how you can excuse Xander's behavior. He and he >> alone is in charge of what he does -- and he chose to act with >> incredible violence; he chose to terrorize Anya. > > He was not in charge of his complete mental faculties, that's how > I "excuse" him. If you had been reading this thread you'd have > figured that out. I have figured it out. I just don't understand how you can use that as an "excuse." I am telling you that Xander's BEHAVIOR is INEXCUSABLE. It is his responsibility to be in charge of his mental faculties. I don't care how upset he is over the fact that the woman he dumped has moved on. He needs to get a grip on his mental faculties, and there is no excuse not to. People who cannot control the violent impulses they get while experiencing extreme emotion do not belong in society. > >>>> No. We are talking about someone who acted out of possessive rage >>>> and jealousy. Not cool. >>> >>> In your opinion those were his motives, and even if I give you >>> the benefit of the doubt on that it doesn't mean he chose to feel >>> or react that way, >> >> He CHOSE to act that way. We cannot really choose how we feel, but >> we CAN choose how we act. He chose to act with violence, chose to >> let his jealous rage take over. > > You've never heard of someone losing control in a moment of > extreme emotion? That's how you act without choosing to. Yes. People do lose control in a moment of rage. However, it took Xander a whole lot more than a moment to 1)see Spike and Anya on the computer 2)go get an axe 3)leave the house 4)get in the car 5)drive the car to the Magic Box 6)get out of the car at the Magic Box and wait for Spike. Get it? This was not the work of a moment. He had plenty of time to think and he chose not to. > >>>> He didn't make a choice, that part of his brain was not >>>> involved. >> >>>> Please. Xander made a choice. Everytime we act we make a choice. >>> >>> Go look up "instinct" and "emotion" and "human behaviour". >> >> Of course it's human behavior. It's very bad human behavior. It's >> criminal behavior from a human being who can CHOOSE how to act. >> People make this choice in life ALL THE TIME. Then, innocent people >> wind up dead, and the people who were so out of control, who >> couldn't get a grip on their emotions, are locked away. They should >> be. We don't need people who control themselves in society. Xander >> acted like one of those people. > > This is all very dry analysis with the benefit of hindsight, and > therefore useless. You said he was acting out of rage, and then > you say he chose to act that way. You can't have it both ways, > either it was a decision he made or it was a blind reaction. If > you want to paint Xander as a premeditated baby-bear torturer, > over Spike no less, that's up to you. Please. We have all had moments of rage where we felt like acting violently. I would say that most of us didn't. We felt the rage -- that was beyond our control. However, our actions are in our control, and most of us have chosen to control ourselves in those moments. Xander felt the rage most of us have felt -- although he really had no right to it -- and then he, unlike most of us, CHOSE to go on a rampage. Many of us have been in situations similar to Xanders, few of us have picked up an axe. As for premeditated -- maybe. It did take a lot of time for him to get from Buffy's house to the Magic Box, time he used to feed his rage rather than his capacity to reason. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-20 14:54:22-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


Orchid wrote: > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: >>Orchid wrote: >>>The point is that they didn't "dust him" but that they crippled him and >>>then beat him knowing he couldn't fight back. Killing him would have >>>been an appropriate response to his aggression while he was still >>>capable of being aggressive. Neutering him and then beating on him is >>>simply amoral. It's tantamount to torture. >> >>Blame the Initiative, not the Scoobies. > > Yes, this is a point. > > However, Buffy is the one who decided to keep him alive even when it was > possible (and reasonable) to kill him on many occasions. Since she's > essentially the head of the gang (and no one would have blamed her for > killing him), that means she's the one who made the choice not to kill > him despite any continued threat he presented. As official or unofficial her leadership was, nobody was bound by her decisions and it doesn't mean anyone else agreed with her -- what would she do if someone did stake Spike? Fire them? > One thing is that, all this discussion is philosophical (and as > objective and dispassionate as possible on my part) and not 100% > applicable to the Buffyverse where Spike wouldn't/couldn't be killed > because: > > 1) The character was too popular. An unfortunate paradox there, as he was one of the worst characters once he got chipped and not a particularly compelling character before that. > 2) The vampires are purported to be demons in human bodies but clearly > act like humans possessed by demons and therefore cannot be judged a > 100% non-human despite the show's stating they are otherwise. I think they waffled too much on this point myself. > The latter is what makes the discussion more difficult than it might be > as it's hard to ignore the fact that the vampires were sometimes > portrayed sympathetically. Which I also think was a mistake across the board and hastened the marginalization of vampires as minor bad guys. -- DJensen

2004-02-20 14:56:46-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


nimue wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>He was not in charge of his complete mental faculties, that's how >>I "excuse" him. If you had been reading this thread you'd have >>figured that out. > > I have figured it out. I just don't understand how you can use that as an > "excuse." I am telling you that Xander's BEHAVIOR is INEXCUSABLE. It is > his responsibility to be in charge of his mental faculties. I don't care > how upset he is over the fact that the woman he dumped has moved on. He > needs to get a grip on his mental faculties, and there is no excuse not to. > People who cannot control the violent impulses they get while experiencing > extreme emotion do not belong in society. You don't get it, and I don't think there's anything left for me to say. -- DJensen

2004-02-20 16:48:55-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


Orchid wrote: > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: >>So Spike doesn't have a choice but to be evil, but Xander, in a >>fit of rage, must have chosen to feel that way and lash out as he >>did? > > This was not a "fit of rage". Xander had the time between seeing the > scene in Buffy's house until he reached the Magic Box to digest the > situation and consider his reaction. Mere seconds on the screen, and see also "road rage". > Regardless, people are accountable for their actions whether they are > angry or not. That's just the way human society works. Once you start > letting people off the hook based on the heat of the moment, you open a > very dangerous door. And, like it or not, Xander is a human and is to be > held up to human standards of morality. Are you mad then that nobody held him accountable for it? What about all the beatings delivered to Ethan Raine? > I find it ironic that you're attempting to excuse Xander's behavior as > understandable or exempt from ethical examination because he was in a > "fit of rage" yet you seem reluctant to excuse Spike's behavior when he > is essentially a possessed by a demonic force which is driving him to do > all the things he does. It is understandable and not just because he was angry. If Anya had boned Warren or Oz and Xander smacked them around, or if Xander knocked around some guy who was just standing in the wrong place, this would be a different issue, but it was _Spike_, a repeat offender, a vampire without a soul. > Which school of thought is this? Humans are irrational but they are > accountable for their behavior whether they are rational or not. If they > weren't, drunk drivers (who have diminished capacity to reason), > wouldn't be responsible for fatalities from traffic accidents they > cause. If you can't keep your head on straight and do something stupid, > you will still be held accountable for your actions. When was the last > time someone beat someone up and used the "I was mad" defense and got > off the hook? Another pointless comparison. As if hitting an inanimate object ("Spike") is like hitting a person. > Incidentally, people can't do things unconsciously (as they'd be > asleep). All actions are conscious actions. Not all actions are Never heard of "highway hypnosis" have you? We do a lot of things every day without consciously thinking about them -- touch typing, for one. If I put any thought into where my fingers were or which keys I need to hit, I'd get nowhere. > reflective or well-thought out and some are not governed by the > restraints of sanity. In civilized society though, ethics are determined > and justice meted out according to generally recognized standards. You > may not like it that it's unethical to beat on a defenseless person or > to kill a defenseles person in a fit of rage but anyone who did so would > likely end up in prison. Yet again, Xander was the only person involved. Your broad brush ethics are immoral. >>It would be unethical to allow Spike to live, given that even >>with a chip he posed a continued threat to everyone, including >>Dawn (the road to Buffy) and Buffy herself ("you came back wrong" >>punch punch). So yes, Xander was behaving unethically when he >>failed to kill Spike. > > Nice attempt to skew the discussion onto a non-sequitar but it won't > work. Xander had no reason to kill Spike on this occasion. It's > ridiculous to assert that Xander had an ethical obligation to kill Spike > because he screwed his former fiancee and that pissed him off. Xander had more reasons to kill him than to keep him alive, and I'm not even including the incident with Anya. He's a _vampire_. > At any rate, it's clear that your end of this discussion is tainted by > some sort of issue with the character of Spike rather than an objective > observation of the situation so I won't respond any further. If you > can't attempt to discuss on point and in good faith, the discussion will > just continue to drift as you reach further and further afield. That > means you get the last word. Enjoy. "If you don't agree with me then you're wrong and I'm going home!" Very nice. It's cute that you think you're being objective, have fun with that. -- DJensen

2004-02-20 16:56:03+09:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (orchid@nospamcsonline.net)


DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > Orchid wrote: > > > Certainly, Spike was evil but it's not like he had a choice. He has no > > conscience and issues of right and wrong will always result in him > > choosing "wrong". They should kill Spike and be done with it or live > > with the consequences of letting him live as a crippled vampire but > > don't use his nature as an excuse for humans to behave amorally. > > So Spike doesn't have a choice but to be evil, but Xander, in a > fit of rage, must have chosen to feel that way and lash out as he > did? This was not a "fit of rage". Xander had the time between seeing the scene in Buffy's house until he reached the Magic Box to digest the situation and consider his reaction. Regardless, people are accountable for their actions whether they are angry or not. That's just the way human society works. Once you start letting people off the hook based on the heat of the moment, you open a very dangerous door. And, like it or not, Xander is a human and is to be held up to human standards of morality. I find it ironic that you're attempting to excuse Xander's behavior as understandable or exempt from ethical examination because he was in a "fit of rage" yet you seem reluctant to excuse Spike's behavior when he is essentially a possessed by a demonic force which is driving him to do all the things he does. > > The logic seems to be that if someone (or "thing" in this case) is bad, > > it's okay to behave badly toward them. It's not. You are ethically no > > better than the creature you're dealing with (and have much less of an > > excuse in this case since the vampire acts on instinct and bloodlust and > > you act as a more thoughtful and capable human being). One may attempt > > to justify unethical behavior by blaming their behavior on the evil > > nature of the "victim" but one doesn't get an ethical pass simply > > because one is abusing a "bad" creature or person. > > I can't stand the school of thought that says human beings are > purely rational and do everything they do consciously and can see > the consequences before they begin. This does not describe Xander > at that moment on the sidewalk certainly, unless he became a Vulcan. Which school of thought is this? Humans are irrational but they are accountable for their behavior whether they are rational or not. If they weren't, drunk drivers (who have diminished capacity to reason), wouldn't be responsible for fatalities from traffic accidents they cause. If you can't keep your head on straight and do something stupid, you will still be held accountable for your actions. When was the last time someone beat someone up and used the "I was mad" defense and got off the hook? Incidentally, people can't do things unconsciously (as they'd be asleep). All actions are conscious actions. Not all actions are reflective or well-thought out and some are not governed by the restraints of sanity. In civilized society though, ethics are determined and justice meted out according to generally recognized standards. You may not like it that it's unethical to beat on a defenseless person or to kill a defenseles person in a fit of rage but anyone who did so would likely end up in prison. > > Ethics aren't on a sliding scale according to who (or what in this case) > > you are dealing with. They are situational. Self-defense or defense of > > others is the only ethical reason for violence (unless you are a > > complete pacifist in which case there's no excuse). "Tit for tat" is not > > an ethically defensible position. > > It would be unethical to allow Spike to live, given that even > with a chip he posed a continued threat to everyone, including > Dawn (the road to Buffy) and Buffy herself ("you came back wrong" > punch punch). So yes, Xander was behaving unethically when he > failed to kill Spike. Nice attempt to skew the discussion onto a non-sequitar but it won't work. Xander had no reason to kill Spike on this occasion. It's ridiculous to assert that Xander had an ethical obligation to kill Spike because he screwed his former fiancee and that pissed him off. At any rate, it's clear that your end of this discussion is tainted by some sort of issue with the character of Spike rather than an objective observation of the situation so I won't respond any further. If you can't attempt to discuss on point and in good faith, the discussion will just continue to drift as you reach further and further afield. That means you get the last word. Enjoy. Orchid

2004-02-20 16:56:05+09:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (orchid@nospamcsonline.net)


DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > Orchid wrote: > > <Sillyman@famous.com> wrote: > >>Spike wasn't decent. He was chipped! He was a soulless monster! Dust > >>him! Jesus Murphy, just because you have a crush on Marsters doesn't > >>mean you have to turn your thinking off. > > > > The point is that they didn't "dust him" but that they crippled him and > > then beat him knowing he couldn't fight back. Killing him would have > > been an appropriate response to his aggression while he was still > > capable of being aggressive. Neutering him and then beating on him is > > simply amoral. It's tantamount to torture. > > Blame the Initiative, not the Scoobies. Yes, this is a point. However, Buffy is the one who decided to keep him alive even when it was possible (and reasonable) to kill him on many occasions. Since she's essentially the head of the gang (and no one would have blamed her for killing him), that means she's the one who made the choice not to kill him despite any continued threat he presented. One thing is that, all this discussion is philosophical (and as objective and dispassionate as possible on my part) and not 100% applicable to the Buffyverse where Spike wouldn't/couldn't be killed because: 1) The character was too popular. 2) The vampires are purported to be demons in human bodies but clearly act like humans possessed by demons and therefore cannot be judged a 100% non-human despite the show's stating they are otherwise. The latter is what makes the discussion more difficult than it might be as it's hard to ignore the fact that the vampires were sometimes portrayed sympathetically. Orchid

2004-02-20 21:26:01+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Sillyman@famous.com)


On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:56:46 -0500, DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: > > >You don't get it, and I don't think there's anything left for me >to say. But you haven't compared her to Hitler yet! And it's your turn!

2004-02-20 22:07:32+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


DJensen wrote: > nimue wrote: >> DJensen wrote: >>> He was not in charge of his complete mental faculties, that's how >>> I "excuse" him. If you had been reading this thread you'd have >>> figured that out. >> >> I have figured it out. I just don't understand how you can use that >> as an "excuse." I am telling you that Xander's BEHAVIOR is >> INEXCUSABLE. It is his responsibility to be in charge of his mental >> faculties. I don't care how upset he is over the fact that the >> woman he dumped has moved on. He needs to get a grip on his mental >> faculties, and there is no excuse not to. People who cannot control >> the violent impulses they get while experiencing extreme emotion do >> not belong in society. > > You don't get it, and I don't think there's anything left for me > to say. What's not to get? You think that it's all right for human to act violently when they are angry and I don't. Most of society agrees with me, by the way. That's why we have laws. What I DON'T get is why you think the way you do. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-20 22:08:23+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


Sillyman@famous.com wrote: > On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:56:46 -0500, DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> > wrote: > >> >> >> You don't get it, and I don't think there's anything left for me >> to say. > > But you haven't compared her to Hitler yet! And it's your turn! Um -- I didn't compare him to Hitler. I mentioned a fascinating essay about Buffyverse that compares it to a fascist state. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-20 22:28:13+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (nimue <cup_o_cakesNOSPAM@yahoo.com>)


DJensen wrote: > Orchid wrote: >> DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: >>> So Spike doesn't have a choice but to be evil, but Xander, in a >>> fit of rage, must have chosen to feel that way and lash out as he >>> did? >> >> This was not a "fit of rage". Xander had the time between seeing the >> scene in Buffy's house until he reached the Magic Box to digest the >> situation and consider his reaction. > > Mere seconds on the screen, and see also "road rage". Yes, but actually time DID pass. We are meant to understand it as such. Screen time is not real time and is not meant to be. As for road rage -- I fail to see how the rage you experience when someone cuts you off in traffic applies in this situation. > >> Regardless, people are accountable for their actions whether they are >> angry or not. That's just the way human society works. Once you start >> letting people off the hook based on the heat of the moment, you >> open a very dangerous door. And, like it or not, Xander is a human >> and is to be held up to human standards of morality. > > Are you mad then that nobody held him accountable for it? > > What about all the beatings delivered to Ethan Raine? What about them? Were we discussing them? I remember Giles beating Ethan Raine to get information so that he could save Sunnydale. It's not up to Amnesty International's standards, but it's not the same thing as attacking someone because you are a possessive jerk. I don't remember Giles beating Ethan just for the heck of it or because he, Giles, was jealous of Ethan or in a bad mood. > >> I find it ironic that you're attempting to excuse Xander's behavior >> as understandable or exempt from ethical examination because he was >> in a "fit of rage" yet you seem reluctant to excuse Spike's behavior >> when he is essentially a possessed by a demonic force which is >> driving him to do all the things he does. > > It is understandable and not just because he was angry. If Anya > had boned Warren or Oz and Xander smacked them around, or if > Xander knocked around some guy who was just standing in the wrong > place, this would be a different issue, but it was _Spike_, a > repeat offender, a vampire without a soul. > >> Which school of thought is this? Humans are irrational but they are >> accountable for their behavior whether they are rational or not. If >> they weren't, drunk drivers (who have diminished capacity to reason), >> wouldn't be responsible for fatalities from traffic accidents they >> cause. If you can't keep your head on straight and do something >> stupid, you will still be held accountable for your actions. When >> was the last time someone beat someone up and used the "I was mad" >> defense and got off the hook? > > Another pointless comparison. As if hitting an inanimate object > ("Spike") is like hitting a person. Is that what's bothering you? You want us to think it's ok to torture or abuse something as long as its not human? Man, I am thinking there is more and more to that Buffy = fascist universe essay than I thought! > >> Incidentally, people can't do things unconsciously (as they'd be >> asleep). All actions are conscious actions. Not all actions are > > Never heard of "highway hypnosis" have you? We do a lot of things > every day without consciously thinking about them -- touch > typing, for one. If I put any thought into where my fingers were > or which keys I need to hit, I'd get nowhere. > >> reflective or well-thought out and some are not governed by the >> restraints of sanity. In civilized society though, ethics are >> determined and justice meted out according to generally recognized >> standards. You may not like it that it's unethical to beat on a >> defenseless person or to kill a defenseles person in a fit of rage >> but anyone who did so would likely end up in prison. > > Yet again, Xander was the only person involved. Your broad brush > ethics are immoral. > >>> It would be unethical to allow Spike to live, given that even >>> with a chip he posed a continued threat to everyone, including >>> Dawn (the road to Buffy) and Buffy herself ("you came back wrong" >>> punch punch). So yes, Xander was behaving unethically when he >>> failed to kill Spike. >> >> Nice attempt to skew the discussion onto a non-sequitar but it won't >> work. Xander had no reason to kill Spike on this occasion. It's >> ridiculous to assert that Xander had an ethical obligation to kill >> Spike because he screwed his former fiancee and that pissed him off. > > Xander had more reasons to kill him than to keep him alive, and > I'm not even including the incident with Anya. He's a _vampire_. > >> At any rate, it's clear that your end of this discussion is tainted >> by some sort of issue with the character of Spike rather than an >> objective observation of the situation so I won't respond any >> further. If you can't attempt to discuss on point and in good faith, >> the discussion will just continue to drift as you reach further and >> further afield. That means you get the last word. Enjoy. > > "If you don't agree with me then you're wrong and I'm going > home!" Very nice. It's cute that you think you're being > objective, have fun with that. What should she do? She graciously gave you the last word and you just want to stay and fight and say nasty things? Please. She was smart to bow out. This is a waste of time. -- nimue "There was a time when I was young and gay -- but straight." Max Bialystock

2004-02-23 01:38:32-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


David Cheatham wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>It is understandable and not just because he was angry. If Anya had >>boned Warren or Oz and Xander smacked them around, or if Xander >>knocked around some guy who was just standing in the wrong place, >>this would be a different issue, but it was Spike, a repeat offender, >>a vampire without a soul. > > A 'repeat offender'? Of screwing Anya? Of murdering people and trying to kill or arrange badness for the Scoobies. Remember? He's a vampire? They kill people? > You're acting like Spike actually did something wrong to trigger > Xander. Spike did *plenty* of evil things in season six and before, but > having sex with Anya wasn't one of them. I 'acted' in no such way, I've been saying that Spike is not some innocent harp seal who got in Xander's calculated path of violent fist-swinging, he's a vampire. >>>Which school of thought is this? Humans are irrational but they are >>>accountable for their behavior whether they are rational or not. If >>>they weren't, drunk drivers (who have diminished capacity to >>>reason), wouldn't be responsible for fatalities from traffic >>>accidents they cause. If you can't keep your head on straight and >>>do something stupid, you will still be held accountable for your >>>actions. When was the last time someone beat someone up and used >>>the "I was mad" defense and got off the hook? >> >>Another pointless comparison. As if hitting an inanimate object >>("Spike") is like hitting a person. > > Spike is not inanimate. He's not a person, but he's not inanimate. He's not a person, no, he's a murdering blood-sucking demon who still managed to put people in harms way even with a chip. He's not worth getting outraged about the treatment he gets. >>Xander had more reasons to kill him than to keep him alive, and I'm >>not even including the incident with Anya. He's a vampire. > > Except, and this is the point everyone seems to be ignoring, that was > *WAY* Xander tried to kill Spike. > > It's not ethical to attempt to hurt someone or even something just > because you feel like it. That way leads to pulling wings off flies and > sticking firecrackers up cats' butts. > > Xander saw a chained animal doing something he didn't like and started > kicking the shit out of it. Doesn't matter how vicious the animal is, > that's not right. Another inappropriate comparison. -- DJensen

2004-02-23 04:56:26+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


DJensen wrote: > Orchid wrote: > > I find it ironic that you're attempting to excuse Xander's behavior > > as understandable or exempt from ethical examination because he was > > in a "fit of rage" yet you seem reluctant to excuse Spike's > > behavior when he is essentially a possessed by a demonic force > > which is driving him to do all the things he does. > > It is understandable and not just because he was angry. If Anya had > boned Warren or Oz and Xander smacked them around, or if Xander > knocked around some guy who was just standing in the wrong place, > this would be a different issue, but it was Spike, a repeat offender, > a vampire without a soul. A 'repeat offender'? Of screwing Anya? You're acting like Spike actually did something wrong to trigger Xander. Spike did *plenty* of evil things in season six and before, but having sex with Anya wasn't one of them. > > Which school of thought is this? Humans are irrational but they are > > accountable for their behavior whether they are rational or not. If > > they weren't, drunk drivers (who have diminished capacity to > > reason), wouldn't be responsible for fatalities from traffic > > accidents they cause. If you can't keep your head on straight and > > do something stupid, you will still be held accountable for your > > actions. When was the last time someone beat someone up and used > > the "I was mad" defense and got off the hook? > > Another pointless comparison. As if hitting an inanimate object > ("Spike") is like hitting a person. Spike is not inanimate. He's not a person, but he's not inanimate. > > reflective or well-thought out and some are not governed by the > > restraints of sanity. In civilized society though, ethics are > > determined and justice meted out according to generally recognized > > standards. You may not like it that it's unethical to beat on a > > defenseless person or to kill a defenseles person in a fit of rage > > but anyone who did so would likely end up in prison. > > Yet again, Xander was the only person involved. Your broad brush > ethics are immoral. Yes, and he saw an animal walking though his flowerbed, and, he tried to kill that animal. You're attempting to justify that by saying the animal was a vicious bear...except that's not why Xander attempted to kill it, and the bear's a trained bear and doesn't hurt people. > > > It would be unethical to allow Spike to live, given that even > > > with a chip he posed a continued threat to everyone, including > > > Dawn (the road to Buffy) and Buffy herself ("you came back wrong" > > > punch punch). So yes, Xander was behaving unethically when he > > > failed to kill Spike. > > > > Nice attempt to skew the discussion onto a non-sequitar but it won't > > work. Xander had no reason to kill Spike on this occasion. It's > > ridiculous to assert that Xander had an ethical obligation to kill > > Spike because he screwed his former fiancee and that pissed him off. > > Xander had more reasons to kill him than to keep him alive, and I'm > not even including the incident with Anya. He's a vampire. Except, and this is the point everyone seems to be ignoring, that was *WAY* Xander tried to kill Spike. It's not ethical to attempt to hurt someone or even something just because you feel like it. That way leads to pulling wings off flies and sticking firecrackers up cats' butts. Xander saw a chained animal doing something he didn't like and started kicking the shit out of it. Doesn't matter how vicious the animal is, that's not right. -- My hostname is only the last two parts.

2004-02-23 09:46:06-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (jeh@galactica.it)


alphakitten <alphakittenx@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<40334409.6060006@netscape.net>... > DJensen wrote: > > alphakitten wrote: > > > >> IMHO, when Spike became someone they were comfortable fighting side by > >> side with, comfortable entrusting with Dawn, he ceased to be someone > >> they could kill on a whim with moral impunity. > > > > > > Considering that Dawn could have dusted him with a tooth pick if she > > felt threatened, that's really not much of an endorsement. > > > > > > > They trusted him to PROTECT her. To risk his life for her. Which he did. > And more than once. I can't fathom a moral perspective where that fails > to earn him the right to not be staked for no legitimate reason. > > > ~Angel These people have no moral perspective what they do have is a completely irrational and rather scary hatred for a fictional character that has never harmed a hair on the head of any living person. The degree with which some fans are inclined to demand righteous vengence for crimes that have never really been committed is puzzling to me. I can understand this kind of stance about real-life homicides (and even then I'd expect it from someone who had been strongly connected with the victim) but how anyone can drum up this kind of venom about a fantasy world and a fantasy character is beyond my understanding. With all the emotional investment I have in Spike at the most I get a bit grumpy for a day or two when things don't go his way, I feel its illogical for Buffy, Xander et all to continue to delude themselves that they have a right to the higher ground, morally speaking, when their behaviour towards him is so clearly wrong by their own standards and I fail to comprehend why fans of the 'just stake him' theory can't see that the writers are making a statement about their 'heroes' everytime a situation like this comes up. I mean that ME clearly did not think Buffy was right to behave the way she did towards him, nor did they present Xander as being in the right when he attacked Spike - that much was very evident, so what's the point of arguing that he was? They might think so but JW and the writers obviously don't and that's what you need to keep in mind. gio

2004-02-23 10:02:35-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (jeh@galactica.it)


DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote in message news:<Gdh_b.2543$253.315222@news20.bellglobal.com>... > David Cheatham wrote: > > DJensen wrote: > >>It is understandable and not just because he was angry. If Anya had > >>boned Warren or Oz and Xander smacked them around, or if Xander > >>knocked around some guy who was just standing in the wrong place, > >>this would be a different issue, but it was Spike, a repeat offender, > >>a vampire without a soul. > > > > A 'repeat offender'? Of screwing Anya? > > Of murdering people and trying to kill or arrange badness for the > Scoobies. Remember? He's a vampire? They kill people? The Scoobies made a choice to accept his help and he continued to supply it and as long as he did so without harming innocents - and he was in no position to do so - they were ethically obliged not to harm him. > > > You're acting like Spike actually did something wrong to trigger > > Xander. Spike did *plenty* of evil things in season six and before, but > > having sex with Anya wasn't one of them. > > I 'acted' in no such way, I've been saying that Spike is not some > innocent harp seal who got in Xander's calculated path of violent > fist-swinging, he's a vampire. That isn't why Xander wanted to axe him though, that was just the excuse he used to let himself give full vent to his rage. As you said yourself if it had been a human male he wouldn't have done it. But it was Spike so he thought it was OK for him to indulge in inappropriate and violent behaviour. Nothing ethical in that as far as I can see. > > >>>Which school of thought is this? Humans are irrational but they are > >>>accountable for their behavior whether they are rational or not. If > >>>they weren't, drunk drivers (who have diminished capacity to > >>>reason), wouldn't be responsible for fatalities from traffic > >>>accidents they cause. If you can't keep your head on straight and > >>>do something stupid, you will still be held accountable for your > >>>actions. When was the last time someone beat someone up and used > >>>the "I was mad" defense and got off the hook? > >> > >>Another pointless comparison. As if hitting an inanimate object > >>("Spike") is like hitting a person. Now you are just trying to be deliberately provocative and BTW showing the full spectrum of your unreasonable dislike. These are fictional characters and as such have the same importance within the story-telling process. The writers and the story itself may present random vamps as cannon -fodder but the more established vampire characters clearly are not. Suck it up and deal. > > > > Spike is not inanimate. He's not a person, but he's not inanimate. > > He's not a person, no, he's a murdering blood-sucking demon who > still managed to put people in harms way even with a chip. He's > not worth getting outraged about the treatment he gets. For you maybe. Plenty of others don't agree as I'm sure you've noticed. And I repeat by showing Xander as so willing to kill someone he knew couldn't defend themselves in an outburst of completely unjustified rage was never something the writers portrayed as being a good and justifiable thing. > > >>Xander had more reasons to kill him than to keep him alive, and I'm > >>not even including the incident with Anya. He's a vampire. > > > > Except, and this is the point everyone seems to be ignoring, that was > > *WAY* Xander tried to kill Spike. It was the 'WHY' Xander tried to kill Spike. Xander despite the fact that he was the one who dumped Anya was not prepared to accept the consequences of his actions. He actually thought she should forgive him and take him back. His emotional response to seeing her screwing someone else other than Spike would have been the same but if that someone had been human he would have had to control himself - since it was Spike he thought he could get away with it. So it was a vampire and a vampire he couldn't stand personally to boot, but it was also a person he knew wouldn't be able to defend himself and a person Xander knew could disappear without trace with no consequences and THAT is the action of a coward. > > > > It's not ethical to attempt to hurt someone or even something just > > because you feel like it. That way leads to pulling wings off flies and > > sticking firecrackers up cats' butts. > > > > Xander saw a chained animal doing something he didn't like and started > > kicking the shit out of it. Doesn't matter how vicious the animal is, > > that's not right. > > Another inappropriate comparison. Why b/c YOU decide it's inappropriate, or b/c it's exactly appropriate and you can't argue with that? gio

2004-02-23 23:00:45+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


DJensen wrote: > David Cheatham wrote: > > DJensen wrote: > > > It is understandable and not just because he was angry. If Anya > > > had boned Warren or Oz and Xander smacked them around, or if > > > Xander knocked around some guy who was just standing in the wrong > > > place, this would be a different issue, but it was Spike, a > > > repeat offender, a vampire without a soul. > > > > A 'repeat offender'? Of screwing Anya? > > Of murdering people and trying to kill or arrange badness for the > Scoobies. Remember? He's a vampire? They kill people? You can't be a general repeat offender. You threw that in there like it was actually why Xander was going to kill him. > > You're acting like Spike actually did something wrong to trigger > > Xander. Spike did plenty of evil things in season six and before, > > but having sex with Anya wasn't one of them. > > I 'acted' in no such way, I've been saying that Spike is not some > innocent harp seal who got in Xander's calculated path of violent > fist-swinging, he's a vampire. No one said he was innocent. But I don't have the right to go down to a prison and hurt people. I, oddly enough, don't even have the right to kill a prisoner sentenced to death. As vampires are outside the law, the gang has...well, nto the *right* to deal with them, but they are, nevertheless, dealing with them, and of that I have no problem. They can find vampires guilt of murder, and kill them. Based on metaphysical information, they can even find them guilt in *advance*, and kill them in self defense. Again, I have no problem with any of that. However, Xander foud Spike guilt of *having sex with this his ex-fiance*, and tried to kill him for that. It doesn't matter that Spike is guiltly of other stuff and could possibly be executed for that, because that's *not* what Xander was trying to kill him for. Even if it doesn't matter in the long run, and it doesn't affect the fate of Spike, it sure as *hell* reflects back on Xander. He decided that sleeping with Anya was an evil enough act that it tripped the judgement for Spike...and he had *no right* to decide that. In fact, that act wasn't evil at all. Not to mention, at that point, Spike was, in fact, a good guy. He was operating within in the bounds set by the Scooby gang. So what, you ask? If the Scoobies want to have a semblance of moral superiority and not just be random thugs, they need to operate within a framework, just like the justice system. This framework can be as simply as 'kill all vampires'. However, their framework *isn't* that one. They decided to let Spike live because he was helpful and cannot hurt people. As long as he remains helpful and unable to hurt people, they are obligated to continue to keep him alive, until they change the rules. (For example, they could require him to save X number of people a week or he gets killed. Or open their jars in the kitchen, or whatever.) An analogy is the parole system. People on parole have *no* right to be on the street, at all. However, this does not mean that a parole officer can see you driving a Volkwagon Beetle and send you back to prison for it simply because he doesn't like those cars. The prisoner was given a framework, and as long as he abides by it, he gets to stay out of jail. Now, this isn't to say the framework couldn't be changed. Spike could indeed be required not to have sex with any of them as a condition of his life, just like parolees could be required not to drive VWs. But that didn't happen...Spike had no idea he wasn't 'allowed' to sleep with Anya. And that rule no one would have agreed to except Xander, anyway, and he's not in charge. And people who use weapons to fight a war in good vs. evil *really* should not get into regulating anyone's personal lives, even demons. That way leads to holy wars. Anyway, Spike wouldn't really have a complaint if Xander tried to kill him. (And, in fact, Spike didn't complain about it.) However, the point isn't *Spike*, the point is *Xander*...he's the petty parole officer. Except he tried to *kill* someone, instead of sending them back to jail. This, BTW, is why I said Spike shouldn't have been killed at the end of Season 4. Yes, he had 'betrayed' them, although anyone who uses that word is looking backwards, as Spike say saying loud and clear he wasn't a good guy, so how he could 'betray' a team he wasn't on I don't know. Anyway, after he had betrayed them, he fought side by side to get them out of the Initiative...and at that point, they had entered into an implicit (actually, it may have been explicit) deal with him: He doesn't try to kill people, and actually operates helpfully, and they don't kill him. -- My hostname is only the last two parts.

2004-02-24 01:41:28-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


gio wrote: > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote in message news:<Gdh_b.2543$253.315222@news20.bellglobal.com>... >>David Cheatham wrote: >>>A 'repeat offender'? Of screwing Anya? >> >>Of murdering people and trying to kill or arrange badness for the >>Scoobies. Remember? He's a vampire? They kill people? > > The Scoobies made a choice to accept his help and he continued to > supply it and as long as he did so without harming innocents - and he > was in no position to do so - they were ethically obliged not to harm > him. Episode and scene where each of the Scoobies made such a pledge and swore it was unrevocable, please. >>>You're acting like Spike actually did something wrong to trigger >>>Xander. Spike did *plenty* of evil things in season six and before, but >>>having sex with Anya wasn't one of them. >> >>I 'acted' in no such way, I've been saying that Spike is not some >>innocent harp seal who got in Xander's calculated path of violent >>fist-swinging, he's a vampire. > > That isn't why Xander wanted to axe him though, that was just the > excuse he used to let himself give full vent to his rage. As you said > yourself if it had been a human male he wouldn't have done it. But it > was Spike so he thought it was OK for him to indulge in inappropriate > and violent behaviour. Nothing ethical in that as far as I can see. I never said that was the reason Xander wanted to chop him into dust. I also never said he wouldn't have done it if it was a human, I said it would be a different issue if he had done the same to Oz or Warren or Giles or Riley or whoever Anya got horizontal with instead of Spike. >>>>Another pointless comparison. As if hitting an inanimate object >>>>("Spike") is like hitting a person. > > Now you are just trying to be deliberately provocative and BTW showing > the full spectrum of your unreasonable dislike. These are fictional > characters and as such have the same importance within the > story-telling process. The writers and the story itself may present > random vamps as cannon -fodder but the more established vampire > characters clearly are not. Suck it up and deal. You are too quick to ad hom. One more and I stop replying to you. I'm well aware that Spike is a piece of fiction and a character that serves a particular purpose for the telling of the story -- I contend that he is a bad character. Activate your coping mechanism now. >>He's not a person, no, he's a murdering blood-sucking demon who >>still managed to put people in harms way even with a chip. He's >>not worth getting outraged about the treatment he gets. > > For you maybe. Plenty of others don't agree as I'm sure you've > noticed. And I repeat by showing Xander as so willing to kill someone > he knew couldn't defend themselves in an outburst of completely > unjustified rage was never something the writers portrayed as being a > good and justifiable thing. You seem to be addressing points I did not make and issues that have not been raised. Where did you get the impression that I was speaking for other people? >>>>Xander had more reasons to kill him than to keep him alive, and I'm >>>>not even including the incident with Anya. He's a vampire. >>> >>>Except, and this is the point everyone seems to be ignoring, that was >>>*WAY* Xander tried to kill Spike. > > It was the 'WHY' Xander tried to kill Spike. Xander despite the fact > that he was the one who dumped Anya was not prepared to accept the > consequences of his actions. He actually thought she should forgive > him and take him back. His emotional response to seeing her screwing > someone else other than Spike would have been the same but if that > someone had been human he would have had to control himself - since it > was Spike he thought he could get away with it. So it was a vampire > and a vampire he couldn't stand personally to boot, but it was also a > person he knew wouldn't be able to defend himself and a person Xander > knew could disappear without trace with no consequences and THAT is > the action of a coward. I don't know who you're directly replying to there, but it isn't me. As for your speculation into the thought process of Xander leading up to the swing of the axe, as mentioned above I have not ventured into that (or suggested he would have controlled himself if it was a human), I have maintained that he was out of his mind with rage. >>>Xander saw a chained animal doing something he didn't like and started >>>kicking the shit out of it. Doesn't matter how vicious the animal is, >>>that's not right. >> >>Another inappropriate comparison. > > Why b/c YOU decide it's inappropriate, or b/c it's exactly appropriate > and you can't argue with that? Because Spike was neither a chained animal nor like one. -- DJensen

2004-02-24 01:50:14-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


David Cheatham wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>David Cheatham wrote: >>>DJensen wrote: >>>>It is understandable and not just because he was angry. If Anya >>>>had boned Warren or Oz and Xander smacked them around, or if >>>>Xander knocked around some guy who was just standing in the wrong >>>>place, this would be a different issue, but it was Spike, a >>>>repeat offender, a vampire without a soul. >>> >>>A 'repeat offender'? Of screwing Anya? >> >>Of murdering people and trying to kill or arrange badness for the >>Scoobies. Remember? He's a vampire? They kill people? > > You can't be a general repeat offender. You threw that in there like it > was actually why Xander was going to kill him. I did no such thing. It's an after-the-fact justification. >>>You're acting like Spike actually did something wrong to trigger >>>Xander. Spike did plenty of evil things in season six and before, >>>but having sex with Anya wasn't one of them. >> >>I 'acted' in no such way, I've been saying that Spike is not some >>innocent harp seal who got in Xander's calculated path of violent >>fist-swinging, he's a vampire. > > No one said he was innocent. > > But I don't have the right to go down to a prison and hurt people. I, > oddly enough, don't even have the right to kill a prisoner sentenced to > death. Meaningless comparion. [snip related] > Not to mention, at that point, Spike was, in fact, a good guy. He was > operating within in the bounds set by the Scooby gang. So what, you ask? > > If the Scoobies want to have a semblance of moral superiority and not > just be random thugs, they need to operate within a framework, just > like the justice system. > > This framework can be as simply as 'kill all vampires'. However, their > framework *isn't* that one. They decided to let Spike live because he > was helpful and cannot hurt people. As long as he remains helpful and > unable to hurt people, they are obligated to continue to keep him > alive, until they change the rules. (For example, they could require > him to save X number of people a week or he gets killed. Or open their > jars in the kitchen, or whatever.) I remind you that Xander has always been in the "kill all vampires" camp and regularly questioned the logic of Buffy's decision to let Spike stay around. He was also the one to take her to task over Angel/Angelus on more than one occassion. (I also seem to recall Xander urging Spike to go through with his planned suicide, but I'm not sure of that.) [Another meaningless comparison snipped.] > This, BTW, is why I said Spike shouldn't have been killed at the end of > Season 4. Yes, he had 'betrayed' them, although anyone who uses that > word is looking backwards, as Spike say saying loud and clear he wasn't > a good guy, so how he could 'betray' a team he wasn't on I don't know. > Anyway, after he had betrayed them, he fought side by side to get them > out of the Initiative...and at that point, they had entered into an > implicit (actually, it may have been explicit) deal with him: He > doesn't try to kill people, and actually operates helpfully, and they > don't kill him. That scene ended with both parties recognizing that he only helped them because he needed them to get out of the base. -- DJensen

2004-02-24 04:40:16-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (jeh@galactica.it)


DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote in message news:<rmC_b.9474$Mo4.305248@news20.bellglobal.com>... > gio wrote: > > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote in message news:<Gdh_b.2543$253.315222@news20.bellglobal.com>... > >>David Cheatham wrote: > >>>A 'repeat offender'? Of screwing Anya? > >> > >>Of murdering people and trying to kill or arrange badness for the > >>Scoobies. Remember? He's a vampire? They kill people? > > > > The Scoobies made a choice to accept his help and he continued to > > supply it and as long as he did so without harming innocents - and he > > was in no position to do so - they were ethically obliged not to harm > > him. > > Episode and scene where each of the Scoobies made such a pledge > and swore it was unrevocable, please. Why should I. It's what happened to all intents and purposes. The Scoobies didn't stake Spike as soon as Buffy died. They accepted his help and Xander himself confirmed that in his conversation with Buffy the day Tara died. The exact quote was I believe...."yes, but I never forgot what he was". In other words Xander was perfectly on board with having Spike's help until the day Spike gave in to his vampire nature. At the time of the A/S sex Spike had done nothing of the sort. So I'm afraid that Xander and the other scoobies gave tacit consent on more than one occasion and after Buffy was no longer on the scene to enforce it. And you know it. > > >>>You're acting like Spike actually did something wrong to trigger > >>>Xander. Spike did *plenty* of evil things in season six and before, but > >>>having sex with Anya wasn't one of them. > >> > >>I 'acted' in no such way, I've been saying that Spike is not some > >>innocent harp seal who got in Xander's calculated path of violent > >>fist-swinging, he's a vampire. > > > > That isn't why Xander wanted to axe him though, that was just the > > excuse he used to let himself give full vent to his rage. As you said > > yourself if it had been a human male he wouldn't have done it. But it > > was Spike so he thought it was OK for him to indulge in inappropriate > > and violent behaviour. Nothing ethical in that as far as I can see. > > I never said that was the reason Xander wanted to chop him into > dust. I also never said he wouldn't have done it if it was a > human, I said it would be a different issue if he had done the > same to Oz or Warren or Giles or Riley or whoever Anya got > horizontal with instead of Spike. So what's the difference? Could it be that Xander would have never have gone there it it had been a human? Are you now taking back what you said about it being a different issue? You're not very coherent are you? > > >>>>Another pointless comparison. As if hitting an inanimate object > >>>>("Spike") is like hitting a person. > > > > Now you are just trying to be deliberately provocative and BTW showing > > the full spectrum of your unreasonable dislike. These are fictional > > characters and as such have the same importance within the > > story-telling process. The writers and the story itself may present > > random vamps as cannon -fodder but the more established vampire > > characters clearly are not. Suck it up and deal. > > You are too quick to ad hom. One more and I stop replying to you. Oh god, I'm going to lose sleep at night about that one. Sure you don't want to stop replying b/c you don't HAVE a convincing reply to give? > > I'm well aware that Spike is a piece of fiction and a character > that serves a particular purpose for the telling of the story -- > I contend that he is a bad character. Activate your coping > mechanism now. You can contend whatever you like. I think the character has been very successful within the context of the show and the critics, the writers, the fans and the network would agree with me not you. > > >>He's not a person, no, he's a murdering blood-sucking demon who > >>still managed to put people in harms way even with a chip. He's > >>not worth getting outraged about the treatment he gets. > > > > For you maybe. Plenty of others don't agree as I'm sure you've > > noticed. And I repeat by showing Xander as so willing to kill someone > > he knew couldn't defend themselves in an outburst of completely > > unjustified rage was never something the writers portrayed as being a > > good and justifiable thing. > > You seem to be addressing points I did not make and issues that > have not been raised. Where did you get the impression that I was > speaking for other people? You are speaking and have spoken, throughout as tho' your opinion is THE opinion - obviously it isn't and at the risk of repeating myself you're not doing a particularly good job of proving your point. > > >>>>Xander had more reasons to kill him than to keep him alive, and I'm > >>>>not even including the incident with Anya. He's a vampire. > >>> > >>>Except, and this is the point everyone seems to be ignoring, that was > >>>*WAY* Xander tried to kill Spike. > > > > It was the 'WHY' Xander tried to kill Spike. Xander despite the fact > > that he was the one who dumped Anya was not prepared to accept the > > consequences of his actions. He actually thought she should forgive > > him and take him back. His emotional response to seeing her screwing > > someone else other than Spike would have been the same but if that > > someone had been human he would have had to control himself - since it > > was Spike he thought he could get away with it. So it was a vampire > > and a vampire he couldn't stand personally to boot, but it was also a > > person he knew wouldn't be able to defend himself and a person Xander > > knew could disappear without trace with no consequences and THAT is > > the action of a coward. > > I don't know who you're directly replying to there, but it isn't > me. As for your speculation into the thought process of Xander > leading up to the swing of the axe, as mentioned above I have not > ventured into that (or suggested he would have controlled himself > if it was a human), I have maintained that he was out of his mind > with rage. I really don't think, given the way the scene was written that it's MY speculation. Willow, BUffy and Dawn sure seemed to have speculated in the same way judging by their reaction when they discovered Xander was no longer in the house. Why'd you think they panicked like that. They thought Xander was going to give Spike a severe talking to??? Anyway this is all smoke. You've suggested that 'it's not like he's human' you've also suggested that 'it's OK to kill him b/c he isn't human' on more than one occasion and still you refuse to address the issue everyone is asking you about: What's ethical about Xander attempting homicide b/c he's ex-girlfriend slept with someone he doesn't like, approve of or trust but whom he is prepared to use whenever he needs him to get the job done? In the tacit agreement they reached and sustained with Spike for over 2 years there was no clause which said: "Thou shalt not screw the women I have or want to screw." So Xander lost it, OK he lost it. But that does not make him admirable or good or righteous - it just makes him someone who lost it and probably wouldn't have done so if he'd known the person on the receiving end was capable of kicking his arse. I've found that that knowledge is real life does a heap of good when it comes to controlling your more violent emotional outbursts. > > >>>Xander saw a chained animal doing something he didn't like and started > >>>kicking the shit out of it. Doesn't matter how vicious the animal is, > >>>that's not right. > >> > >>Another inappropriate comparison. > > > > Why b/c YOU decide it's inappropriate, or b/c it's exactly appropriate > > and you can't argue with that? > > Because Spike was neither a chained animal nor like one. Duh - It's a metaphor (you do know what they are right)? I mean presumably you actually watch the show occasionally. gio

2004-02-24 12:34:00-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


David Cheatham wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>I did no such thing. It's an after-the-fact justification. > > And you see nothing wrong with people doing that? > > If, for example, a cop doesn't like someone, and pulls him over because > of a fictional broken taillight, but discovers something wrong with his > insurance once he does...you don't have any sort of problem with that? Jesus, more inappropriate comparisons. Why am I the one being lambasted for being unethical by pointing out that Spike was a vampire and that should he have been decapitated, oh well, but everyone else is conjuring up these broad comparisons wherein there's Xander swinging an axe at every possible other thing, making a mockery of the actual situation? Spike was not like a convicted murderer, or a puppy tied to a tree, or an insurance defrauder, or a rabid mongoose with an uzi, or bad tipper, or a regifter, or a concentration camp internee, or Willy, or some frat guy Anya hooked up with while drunk. >>Meaningless comparion. > > No, not really. Just because someone or something has been sentenced to > death doesn't give you the right to randomly kill it because it annoys > you. Which makes it a meaningless comparison, because again, Spike was not a person sentenced to die or a person in any capacity of the show's context. >>>This framework can be as simply as 'kill all vampires'. However, >>>their framework *isn't* that one. They decided to let Spike live >>>because he was helpful and cannot hurt people. As long as he >>>remains helpful and unable to hurt people, they are obligated to >>>continue to keep him alive, until they change the rules. (For >>>example, they could require him to save X number of people a week >>>or he gets killed. Or open their jars in the kitchen, or whatever.) >> >>I remind you that Xander has always been in the "kill all vampires" >>camp and regularly questioned the logic of Buffy's decision to let >>Spike stay around. > > That's a very odd camp for Xander to be in *when he's let Spike sleep > in his house* four months later. Tied to a chair a la Thanksgiving. >And drinking in a bar with him. Is that the bar scene where he told Spike to get lost, and Spike stole his money? > And if you think Xander, at this point, would rather Angel die, you'd > sadly confused about their relationship. The same thing with Spike. Angel has a soul, Spike at the time did not. > Xander *distrusts* vampires. Even souled ones. He's *never* taken the > position that they should all die. He's never taken the position that > season 5-6 Spike should die. Hyperbole, he was fine with the idea of them dying, I was using your term for "kill all vampires". > >>He was also the one to take her to task over >>Angel/Angelus on more than one occassion. > > Before Angel turned evil, that was presented simply as jealousy, and he > never suggested Angel should die, just that she should date some actual > people, namely him. > > *After* Angelus turned evil, well, that's another matter. Being > terorized for months by a guy has that effect on people. But the only > time he tried to have Angel dead was when he first came back and > Xander didn't know if he had a soul, and when he found out he did, he > got Buffy to stop Faith. After he turned it became a matter of 'I told you so'. > >>(I also seem to recall >>Xander urging Spike to go through with his planned suicide, but I'm >>not sure of that.) > > Yes, and Spike certainly *wasn't* a part of the gang then, and they > didn't even have a deal about him fighting evil, because he didn't know > he could fight anything. > > The only agreement in place at that time was (And this was actually an > *explicitly* stated agreement), is that they protect him from the > Initiative, and not kill him, and he tells them all he knows about it. >>That scene ended with both parties recognizing that he only helped >>them because he needed them to get out of the base. > > Correct. And they let him live because they needed *him* to get out of > the base. That remains to be seen; I doubt the principle characters of the show would have a hard time not dying in the last second of the episode or the implied intraepisode period of the escape. > That is what is called a 'deal'. There was nothing to suggest it was set in stone or more than a one-time-only offer. -- DJensen

2004-02-24 14:43:41+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


DJensen wrote: > David Cheatham wrote: > > DJensen wrote: > > > David Cheatham wrote: > > > > DJensen wrote: > > > > > It is understandable and not just because he was angry. If > > > > > Anya had boned Warren or Oz and Xander smacked them around, > > > > > or if Xander knocked around some guy who was just standing in > > > > > the wrong place, this would be a different issue, but it was > > > > > Spike, a repeat offender, a vampire without a soul. > > > > > > > > A 'repeat offender'? Of screwing Anya? > > > > > > Of murdering people and trying to kill or arrange badness for the > > > Scoobies. Remember? He's a vampire? They kill people? > > > > You can't be a general repeat offender. You threw that in there > > like it was actually why Xander was going to kill him. > > I did no such thing. It's an after-the-fact justification. And you see nothing wrong with people doing that? If, for example, a cop doesn't like someone, and pulls him over because of a fictional broken taillight, but discovers something wrong with his insurance once he does...you don't have any sort of problem with that? > > > > You're acting like Spike actually did something wrong to trigger > > > > Xander. Spike did plenty of evil things in season six and > > > > before, but having sex with Anya wasn't one of them. > > > > > > I 'acted' in no such way, I've been saying that Spike is not some > > > innocent harp seal who got in Xander's calculated path of violent > > > fist-swinging, he's a vampire. > > > > No one said he was innocent. > > > > But I don't have the right to go down to a prison and hurt people. > > I, oddly enough, don't even have the right to kill a prisoner > > sentenced to death. > > Meaningless comparion. No, not really. Just because someone or something has been sentenced to death doesn't give you the right to randomly kill it because it annoys you. > [snip related] > > > Not to mention, at that point, Spike was, in fact, a good guy. He > > was operating within in the bounds set by the Scooby gang. So what, > > you ask? > > > > If the Scoobies want to have a semblance of moral superiority and > > not just be random thugs, they need to operate within a framework, > > just like the justice system. > > > > This framework can be as simply as 'kill all vampires'. However, > > their framework *isn't* that one. They decided to let Spike live > > because he was helpful and cannot hurt people. As long as he > > remains helpful and unable to hurt people, they are obligated to > > continue to keep him alive, until they change the rules. (For > > example, they could require him to save X number of people a week > > or he gets killed. Or open their jars in the kitchen, or whatever.) > > I remind you that Xander has always been in the "kill all vampires" > camp and regularly questioned the logic of Buffy's decision to let > Spike stay around. That's a very odd camp for Xander to be in *when he's let Spike sleep in his house* four months later. And drinking in a bar with him. And if you think Xander, at this point, would rather Angel die, you'd sadly confused about their relationship. The same thing with Spike. Xander *distrusts* vampires. Even souled ones. He's *never* taken the position that they should all die. He's never taken the position that season 5-6 Spike should die. > He was also the one to take her to task over > Angel/Angelus on more than one occassion. Before Angel turned evil, that was presented simply as jealousy, and he never suggested Angel should die, just that she should date some actual people, namely him. *After* Angelus turned evil, well, that's another matter. Being terorized for months by a guy has that effect on people. But the only time he tried to have Angel dead was when he first came back and Xander didn't know if he had a soul, and when he found out he did, he got Buffy to stop Faith. > (I also seem to recall > Xander urging Spike to go through with his planned suicide, but I'm > not sure of that.) Yes, and Spike certainly *wasn't* a part of the gang then, and they didn't even have a deal about him fighting evil, because he didn't know he could fight anything. The only agreement in place at that time was (And this was actually an *explicitly* stated agreement), is that they protect him from the Initiative, and not kill him, and he tells them all he knows about it. > [Another meaningless comparison snipped.] > > > This, BTW, is why I said Spike shouldn't have been killed at the > > end of Season 4. Yes, he had 'betrayed' them, although anyone who > > uses that word is looking backwards, as Spike say saying loud and > > clear he wasn't a good guy, so how he could 'betray' a team he > > wasn't on I don't know. Anyway, after he had betrayed them, he > > fought side by side to get them out of the Initiative...and at that > > point, they had entered into an implicit (actually, it may have > > been explicit) deal with him: He doesn't try to kill people, and > > actually operates helpfully, and they don't kill him. > > That scene ended with both parties recognizing that he only helped > them because he needed them to get out of the base. Correct. And they let him live because they needed *him* to get out of the base. That is what is called a 'deal'. -- My hostname is only the last two parts.

2004-02-24 16:29:47+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (aej17DELETEME@comcast.net)


gio <jeh@galactica.it> wrote: > issue everyone is asking you about: What's ethical about Xander > attempting homicide b/c he's ex-girlfriend slept with someone he > doesn't like, approve of or trust but whom he is prepared to use > whenever he needs him to get the job done?

2004-02-24 19:27:42+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (Sillyman@famous.com)


On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 12:34:00 -0500, DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote: >Spike was not like a convicted murderer, or a puppy tied to a >tree, or an insurance defrauder, or a rabid mongoose with an uzi, >or bad tipper, or a regifter, or a concentration camp internee, >or Willy, or some frat guy Anya hooked up with while drunk. I believe if you take a moment to think that out again you will see that you have probably made an error. I'll grant you that there are exceptions to every rule, however, Spike being a Brit, it is likely, and almost certain, that he is a bad tipper. Does Anya drink with frat guys? I thought frat house slaughter was her thing. Did I miss an ep?

2004-02-24 21:27:53+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


DJensen wrote: > David Cheatham wrote: > > DJensen wrote: > > > I did no such thing. It's an after-the-fact justification. > > > > And you see nothing wrong with people doing that? > > > > If, for example, a cop doesn't like someone, and pulls him over > > because of a fictional broken taillight, but discovers something > > wrong with his insurance once he does...you don't have any sort of > > problem with that? > > Jesus, more inappropriate comparisons. Why am I the one being > lambasted for being unethical by pointing out that Spike was a > vampire and that should he have been decapitated, oh well, but > everyone else is conjuring up these broad comparisons wherein there's > Xander swinging an axe at every possible other thing, making a > mockery of the actual situation? > > Spike was not like a convicted murderer, or a puppy tied to a tree, > or an insurance defrauder, or a rabid mongoose with an uzi, or bad > tipper, or a regifter, or a concentration camp internee, or Willy, or > some frat guy Anya hooked up with while drunk. > > > > Meaningless comparion. > > > > No, not really. Just because someone or something has been > > sentenced to death doesn't give you the right to randomly kill it > > because it annoys you. > > Which makes it a meaningless comparison, because again, Spike was not > a person sentenced to die or a person in any capacity of the show's > context. > > > > > This framework can be as simply as 'kill all vampires'. However, > > > > their framework *isn't* that one. They decided to let Spike live > > > > because he was helpful and cannot hurt people. As long as he > > > > remains helpful and unable to hurt people, they are obligated to > > > > continue to keep him alive, until they change the rules. (For > > > > example, they could require him to save X number of people a > > > > week or he gets killed. Or open their jars in the kitchen, or > > > > whatever.) > > > > > > I remind you that Xander has always been in the "kill all > > > vampires" camp and regularly questioned the logic of Buffy's > > > decision to let Spike stay around. > > > > That's a very odd camp for Xander to be in *when he's let Spike > > sleep in his house* four months later. > > Tied to a chair a la Thanksgiving. Um, no. Xander let Spike sleep in his apartment after the First had driven him crazy. Now, yes, that was after he got his soul. So it's not exactly the same sitution. However, you're right, Xander had let Spike sleep in his apartment, and, no, Spike was not tied up all the time, although he probably was while asleep. But that was two years before the point we're talking about. > > And drinking in a bar with him. > > Is that the bar scene where he told Spike to get lost, and Spike > stole his money? No. > > And if you think Xander, at this point, would rather Angel die, > > you'd sadly confused about their relationship. The same thing with > > Spike. > > Angel has a soul, Spike at the time did not. Spike hadn't had a soul for *a hundred years*. Why was it suddenly time to kill him? Oh, that's right, he stole Xander's property. Erm, slept with his woman. > > Xander distrusts vampires. Even souled ones. He's never taken the > > position that they should all die. He's never taken the position > > that season 5-6 Spike should die. > > Hyperbole, he was fine with the idea of them dying, I was using your > term for "kill all vampires". > > > > > > He was also the one to take her to task over > > > Angel/Angelus on more than one occassion. > > > > Before Angel turned evil, that was presented simply as jealousy, > > and he never suggested Angel should die, just that she should date > > some actual people, namely him. > > > > After Angelus turned evil, well, that's another matter. Being > > terorized for months by a guy has that effect on people. But the > > only time he tried to have Angel dead was when he first came back > > and Xander didn't know if he had a soul, and when he found out he > > did, he got Buffy to stop Faith. > > After he turned it became a matter of 'I told you so'. Right. Except he was actually wrong there. No one even thought losing his soul was a possiblity, and Xander certainly bring it up. He thought Angel was untrustworthy *with* a soul. And that's not incredibly relevent, the point was that at no time did he think they'd be better off with *Angel* dead. > > > (I also seem to recall > > > Xander urging Spike to go through with his planned suicide, but > > > I'm not sure of that.) > > > > Yes, and Spike certainly *wasn't* a part of the gang then, and they > > didn't even have a deal about him fighting evil, because he didn't > > know he could fight anything. > > > > The only agreement in place at that time was (And this was actually > > an explicitly stated agreement), is that they protect him from the > > Initiative, and not kill him, and he tells them all he knows about > > it. > > > > That scene ended with both parties recognizing that he only helped > > > them because he needed them to get out of the base. > > > > Correct. And they let him live because they needed him to get out of > > the base. > > That remains to be seen; I doubt the principle characters of the show > would have a hard time not dying in the last second of the episode or > the implied intraepisode period of the escape. Um, the fact they are the main characters and thus probably won't be killed has no bearing on *their* behavior. > > That is what is called a 'deal'. > > There was nothing to suggest it was set in stone or more than a > one-time-only offer. I didn't say it was. When he helped them escape, quite a lot of people said 'They should have staked him immediately after getting out.', and I was appalled at that concept. You don't make a deal with your one enemy to escape a another common enemy and then betray them after they help you, that's the sort of stuff *villians* do, not the heros. I'd have been perfectly okay if they'd said 'You get a fifteen minute head start.', though. But Spike at the end of season 4 did not have the same relationship as Spike in the middle of season 6. Spike at that point had been helping the gang solid for *at least* a year. -- My hostname is only the last two parts.

2004-02-24 21:27:56+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


gio wrote: > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote in message > news:<rmC_b.9474$Mo4.305248@news20.bellglobal.com>... > > gio wrote: > > > DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote in message > > > news:<Gdh_b.2543$253.315222@news20.bellglobal.com>... > > > > David Cheatham wrote: > > > > > A 'repeat offender'? Of screwing Anya? > > > > > > > > Of murdering people and trying to kill or arrange badness for > > > > the Scoobies. Remember? He's a vampire? They kill people? > > > > > > The Scoobies made a choice to accept his help and he continued to > > > supply it and as long as he did so without harming innocents - > > > and he was in no position to do so - they were ethically obliged > > > not to harm him. > > > > Episode and scene where each of the Scoobies made such a pledge > > and swore it was unrevocable, please. > > Why should I. It's what happened to all intents and purposes. The > Scoobies didn't stake Spike as soon as Buffy died. They accepted his > help and Xander himself confirmed that in his conversation with Buffy > the day Tara died. The exact quote was I believe...."yes, but I never > forgot what he was". In other words Xander was perfectly on board > with having Spike's help until the day Spike gave in to his vampire > nature. At the time of the A/S sex Spike had done nothing of the > sort. So I'm afraid that Xander and the other scoobies gave tacit > consent on more than one occasion and after Buffy was no longer on the > scene to enforce it. And you know it. You know, that's really the point. Let's take the concept of 'he needed killing'. Spike may have needed killing, or may not have, at any point in his soulless life. In fact, by default, he *did* need killing. In fact, while *I* think it's unethical to go back on a deal with a soulless creature, it is even possible to argue it's not, although that way leads to the ends justifying the means. So possibly Xander could walk up at any time to Spike and kill him. However, ten seconds before Xander knew Spike was sleeping with Anya, Xander apparently didn't think Spike needed killing. Ten seconds after, he did. Whether Spike needs killing or not, his needing-killingness didn't change when he slept with Anya, at all. What two consenting demons do in the (apparent) privacy of their own property is not something that can effect how much they need killing. So either Xander is completely irrational and making decisions randomly, or he reevaluate the 'Should Spike be killed?' question using *completely* inapproriate criteria, namely, how jealous he was. There are many areas in the Buffyverse that are gray areas, and many areas that whether or not they are a gray area is, itself, a gray area. But, for example, let's take Doyle. Half demon. A gray area, right? Let's say Xander has to decide to kill him or not. Hey, Doyle was protrayed as somewhat unethical, but not evil...a gray area. But let's say he's doing vaguely evil things, like mugging people, and the police can't stop him because of some supernatural reason. Xander decides not to kill him, because he hasn't killed anyone, and he's promised to stop, and he *does* stop. Except then Doyle and Cordelia hook up, and Xander gets jealous. Is it now okay to kill Doyle? See, it doesn't matter if Spike is killable at any time or not because he's a soulless vampire, no one is *ever* killable based on their personal consensual relationships with your ex. It doesn't matter if they are killable for other reasons, you can't kill them for *that* one. -- My hostname is only the last two parts.

2004-02-25 00:48:55-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


David Cheatham wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>Angel has a soul, Spike at the time did not. > > Spike hadn't had a soul for *a hundred years*. Why was it suddenly time > to kill him? > > Oh, that's right, he stole Xander's property. Erm, slept with his woman. No, it was alright if he died at that moment because he was a soulless vampire. You don't have to approve of how it was done, or why, or by whom, or where, or when. >>>After Angelus turned evil, well, that's another matter. Being >>>terorized for months by a guy has that effect on people. But the >>>only time he tried to have Angel dead was when he first came back >>>and Xander didn't know if he had a soul, and when he found out he >>>did, he got Buffy to stop Faith. >> >>After he turned it became a matter of 'I told you so'. > > Right. > > Except he was actually wrong there. No one even thought losing his soul > was a possiblity, and Xander certainly bring it up. He thought Angel > was untrustworthy *with* a soul. > > And that's not incredibly relevent, the point was that at no time did > he think they'd be better off with *Angel* dead. You are rebutting your own hypothetical. >>>Correct. And they let him live because they needed him to get out of >>>the base. >> >>That remains to be seen; I doubt the principle characters of the show >>would have a hard time not dying in the last second of the episode or >>the implied intraepisode period of the escape. > > Um, the fact they are the main characters and thus probably won't be > killed has no bearing on *their* behavior. On the contrary, we're talking about a work of fiction after all -- they could not behave in ways, or for reasons, that would result in their deaths unless that was the will of the studio. >>>That is what is called a 'deal'. >> >>There was nothing to suggest it was set in stone or more than a >>one-time-only offer. > > I didn't say it was. I didn't say you did, I was just being clear that a 'deal' does not in itself imply eternal conditions. > When he helped them escape, quite a lot of people said 'They should > have staked him immediately after getting out.', and I was appalled at > that concept. You don't make a deal with your one enemy to escape a > another common enemy and then betray them after they help you, that's > the sort of stuff *villians* do, not the heros. The enemy of my enemy is my friend -- until he's served his purpose, then he's my enemy again. If a certain government had remembered this, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (among many others) would not be household names now. > I'd have been perfectly okay if they'd said 'You get a fifteen minute > head start.', though. Why not extend the same courtesy to all vampires and bad witches and demons then? Why does contributing to common survival grant him some special status? > But Spike at the end of season 4 did not have the same relationship as > Spike in the middle of season 6. Spike at that point had been helping > the gang solid for *at least* a year. And I don't agree that that would ultimately make his sudden death (at Xander's or Giles' or Willy's hands, or by fluke midnight sunrise) regretable. Not until he had a soul (even then... where was the remorse?) -- DJensen

2004-02-25 11:19:43-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


David Cheatham wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>No, it was alright if he died at that moment because he was a >>soulless vampire. You don't have to approve of how it was done, or >>why, or by whom, or where, or when. > > Let's deconstruct that first sentence: 'No, it was alright if he died > at that moment because he was a soulless vampire.'. > > Interestingly enough, that was exactly what I was saying. It's okay for > him to die at any time because he's a soulless vampire. > > However, he didn't almost die because he was a soulless vampire...he > almost died because Xander was jealous. I did not use 'because' to indicate a reason for his death, but as a reason why it would be acceptable. I think you know that. If you'd prefer: No, because he was a soulless vampire it was alright if he died at that moment. > It is perfectly valid to complain about someone's motives, *even when > they do because that would normally be allowed*. If I own you five > hundred dollars, and you come around demanding it, well, that's > perfectly okay. > > If you'd been letting it slide because I was a friend, and we in fact > had an unspoken agreement you'd keep letting it slide until I got on my > feet, because you didn't actually need to money, I have to right to be > slightly annoyed if you just randomly changed your mind without > warning, but it is, in fact, understandable...maybe you now need the > money, or have reason to think I've become untrustworthy. > > But if you come around demanding the money two minutes after you learn > I hooked up with an ex-girlfriend that you dumped...well, I'll probably > just ignore you. That is not a valid reason to want your money back, > *even if* you have the right to demand the money at any time. In the > end, I probably couldn't do anything...motives wouldn't effect the > court at all, and I'd have to pay you. But that doesn't mean that > *your* behavior wasn't petty. Given that it's 'my' money under any and all circumstances, anytime or for any reason I demand it back is valid. Just because you don't like the timing doesn't make it not-my money. >>>Except he was actually wrong there. No one even thought losing his >>>soul was a possiblity, and Xander certainly bring it up. He thought >>>Angel was untrustworthy with a soul. >>> >>>And that's not incredibly relevent, the point was that at no time >>>did he think they'd be better off with Angel dead. >> >>You are rebutting your own hypothetical. > > No I'm not. Xander has never been in the 'kill them all camp'. He's > said many things that lead to an implicaiton of that, but only if you > completely ignore his behavior. Until the latest seasons when even broom-arm Dawn could slay vampires, Xander didn't really have much of a choice in whether vamps got away. Spike, the only exception to that, I've already covered. > Spike, as you pointed out, was tied to a chair in his room. Likewise, > Spike was *completely unable to defend himself* both before and after > the attempted killing by Xander...yet Xander didn't try to kill him > then. The ropes worked in lieu of a staking. If Xander actually felt he had some sort of deal or common understanding, would he have tied Spike up at all? > Xander apparently thought it was okay for Spike to live. If he didn't, > there were *thousands* of chances for him to off Spike without anyone > even *knowing*. The only reason Xander tolerated Spike's continued unliving is because Buffy wanted him to. For Xander's gut feeling about Spike, check his behaviour in Hush when he thinks Anya's just been drained. > You'll notice I'm not complaining about Riley, right? Riley seemed to > feel he could kill Spike at any time. He never accepted Spike at all. > But he didn't get jealous and try to kill Spike for no good reason. > > Actually, the analogy doesn't really work, even if he *had* killed > Spike after he came back to town, Spike *had* apparently been selling > demon eggs, so was in rather several violation of his 'parole'. I would > probably just give Riley the benefit of the doubt and assume he had > better motives that 'Spike's sleeping with my ex! I must kill him!'. Riley was married and had been away from Buffy for months (a year?) at the time. Completely different situation with Xander and Anya, who had just split over some confusing spell thing which was for some reason never explained to anyone by Xander (stupid writers), with Xander thinking they were on some sort of break and still trying to get Anya back. Entirely different emotional immediacy involved. >>I didn't say you did, I was just being clear that a 'deal' does not >>in itself imply eternal conditions. > > Right. However, Xander did not have tha authority to change them, and > in fact had no right to decide that sleeping with his girlfriend should > be a violation of the rules. He had every right to change the conditions of whatever 'deal' he was involved with, regardless of his motives. Being jealous or out of his mind with rage or feeling betrayed doesn't change what Spike was at the time. >>>When he helped them escape, quite a lot of people said 'They should >>>have staked him immediately after getting out.', and I was appalled >>>at that concept. You don't make a deal with your one enemy to >>>escape a another common enemy and then betray them after they help >>>you, that's the sort of stuff villians do, not the heros. >> >>The enemy of my enemy is my friend -- until he's served his purpose, >>then he's my enemy again. If a certain government had remembered >>this, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (among many others) would >>not be household names now. > > Erm, no. The US shouldn't have helped those people in the first place. But it did, just as the Scoobies helped Spike escape and avoid the Initiative. Once you've made your bed, you're allowed to pull off all the sheets and burn them, you don't have to climb in. >>>I'd have been perfectly okay if they'd said 'You get a fifteen >>>minute head start.', though. >> >>Why not extend the same courtesy to all vampires and bad witches and >>demons then? Why does contributing to common survival grant him some >>special status? > > Because they aren't unable to kill? Because they hadn't just helped you? Again, why does contributing to common survival grant him some special status? He's not any less able to scheme against them if the right Big Bad comes along. >>>But Spike at the end of season 4 did not have the same relationship >>>as Spike in the middle of season 6. Spike at that point had been >>>helping the gang solid for *at least* a year. >> >>And I don't agree that that would ultimately make his sudden death >>(at Xander's or Giles' or Willy's hands, or by fluke midnight >>sunrise) regretable. Not until he had a soul (even then... where was >>the remorse?) > > No, I've never siad it would be regrettable. I'm saying that Xander had > no right to decide to kill Spike *for the reason he decided to kill > Spike*. He had all the right in the world to kill Spike for, basically, > any reason at all...but not jealousy. This is what it boils down to. I disagree. Any reason is a valid reason given that it was Spike. Xander's motives could be the worst or the most noble ever conceived by mortal mind, it's irrelevant. -- DJensen

2004-02-25 14:41:28+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


DJensen wrote: > David Cheatham wrote: > > DJensen wrote: > > > Angel has a soul, Spike at the time did not. > > > > Spike hadn't had a soul for *a hundred years*. Why was it suddenly > > time to kill him? > > > > Oh, that's right, he stole Xander's property. Erm, slept with his > > woman. > > No, it was alright if he died at that moment because he was a > soulless vampire. You don't have to approve of how it was done, or > why, or by whom, or where, or when. Let's deconstruct that first sentence: 'No, it was alright if he died at that moment because he was a soulless vampire.'. Interestingly enough, that was exactly what I was saying. It's okay for him to die at any time because he's a soulless vampire. However, he didn't almost die because he was a soulless vampire...he almost died because Xander was jealous. It is perfectly valid to complain about someone's motives, *even when they do because that would normally be allowed*. If I own you five hundred dollars, and you come around demanding it, well, that's perfectly okay. If you'd been letting it slide because I was a friend, and we in fact had an unspoken agreement you'd keep letting it slide until I got on my feet, because you didn't actually need to money, I have to right to be slightly annoyed if you just randomly changed your mind without warning, but it is, in fact, understandable...maybe you now need the money, or have reason to think I've become untrustworthy. But if you come around demanding the money two minutes after you learn I hooked up with an ex-girlfriend that you dumped...well, I'll probably just ignore you. That is not a valid reason to want your money back, *even if* you have the right to demand the money at any time. In the end, I probably couldn't do anything...motives wouldn't effect the court at all, and I'd have to pay you. But that doesn't mean that *your* behavior wasn't petty. Likewise, no one could complain about the loss of Spike if Xander killed him. That doesn't make Xander magically a good person for doing it. > > > > After Angelus turned evil, well, that's another matter. Being > > > > terorized for months by a guy has that effect on people. But the > > > > only time he tried to have Angel dead was when he first came > > > > back and Xander didn't know if he had a soul, and when he found > > > > out he did, he got Buffy to stop Faith. > > > > > > After he turned it became a matter of 'I told you so'. > > > > Right. > > > > Except he was actually wrong there. No one even thought losing his > > soul was a possiblity, and Xander certainly bring it up. He thought > > Angel was untrustworthy with a soul. > > > > And that's not incredibly relevent, the point was that at no time > > did he think they'd be better off with Angel dead. > > You are rebutting your own hypothetical. No I'm not. Xander has never been in the 'kill them all camp'. He's said many things that lead to an implicaiton of that, but only if you completely ignore his behavior. Spike, as you pointed out, was tied to a chair in his room. Likewise, Spike was *completely unable to defend himself* both before and after the attempted killing by Xander...yet Xander didn't try to kill him then. Xander apparently thought it was okay for Spike to live. If he didn't, there were *thousands* of chances for him to off Spike without anyone even *knowing*. You'll notice I'm not complaining about Riley, right? Riley seemed to feel he could kill Spike at any time. He never accepted Spike at all. But he didn't get jealous and try to kill Spike for no good reason. Actually, the analogy doesn't really work, even if he *had* killed Spike after he came back to town, Spike *had* apparently been selling demon eggs, so was in rather several violation of his 'parole'. I would probably just give Riley the benefit of the doubt and assume he had better motives that 'Spike's sleeping with my ex! I must kill him!'. But there's no way to give Xander anything except motives. > > > > That is what is called a 'deal'. > > > > > > There was nothing to suggest it was set in stone or more than a > > > one-time-only offer. > > > > I didn't say it was. > > I didn't say you did, I was just being clear that a 'deal' does not > in itself imply eternal conditions. Right. However, Xander did not have tha authority to change them, and in fact had no right to decide that sleeping with his girlfriend should be a violation of the rules. > > When he helped them escape, quite a lot of people said 'They should > > have staked him immediately after getting out.', and I was appalled > > at that concept. You don't make a deal with your one enemy to > > escape a another common enemy and then betray them after they help > > you, that's the sort of stuff villians do, not the heros. > > The enemy of my enemy is my friend -- until he's served his purpose, > then he's my enemy again. If a certain government had remembered > this, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (among many others) would > not be household names now. Erm, no. The US shouldn't have helped those people in the first place. > > I'd have been perfectly okay if they'd said 'You get a fifteen > > minute head start.', though. > > Why not extend the same courtesy to all vampires and bad witches and > demons then? Why does contributing to common survival grant him some > special status? Because they aren't unable to kill? Because they hadn't just helped you? > > But Spike at the end of season 4 did not have the same relationship > > as Spike in the middle of season 6. Spike at that point had been > > helping the gang solid for *at least* a year. > > And I don't agree that that would ultimately make his sudden death > (at Xander's or Giles' or Willy's hands, or by fluke midnight > sunrise) regretable. Not until he had a soul (even then... where was > the remorse?) No, I've never siad it would be regrettable. I'm saying that Xander had no right to decide to kill Spike *for the reason he decided to kill Spike*. He had all the right in the world to kill Spike for, basically, any reason at all...but not jealousy. -- My hostname is only the last two parts.

2004-02-25 22:21:44+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


DJensen wrote: > David Cheatham wrote: > > DJensen wrote: > > > No, it was alright if he died at that moment because he was a > > > soulless vampire. You don't have to approve of how it was done, or > > > why, or by whom, or where, or when. > > > > Let's deconstruct that first sentence: 'No, it was alright if he > > died at that moment because he was a soulless vampire.'. > > > > Interestingly enough, that was exactly what I was saying. It's okay > > for him to die at any time because he's a soulless vampire. > > > > However, he didn't almost die because he was a soulless vampire...he > > almost died because Xander was jealous. > > I did not use 'because' to indicate a reason for his death, but as a > reason why it would be acceptable. I think you know that. > > If you'd prefer: > > No, because he was a soulless vampire it was alright if he died at > that moment. Yes. But that has little bearing on whether it would be alright for *Xander* to kill him at that moment for a *different* reason. Just because it is okay for something to happen, doesn't mean it is okay for a person to do it for any reason. This is the fundemental wall we keep running into and you keep *completely* ignoring. > > It is perfectly valid to complain about someone's motives, *even > > when they do because that would normally be allowed*. If I own you > > five hundred dollars, and you come around demanding it, well, that's > > perfectly okay. > > > > If you'd been letting it slide because I was a friend, and we in > > fact had an unspoken agreement you'd keep letting it slide until I > > got on my feet, because you didn't actually need to money, I have > > to right to be slightly annoyed if you just randomly changed your > > mind without warning, but it is, in fact, understandable...maybe > > you now need the money, or have reason to think I've become > > untrustworthy. > > > > But if you come around demanding the money two minutes after you > > learn I hooked up with an ex-girlfriend that you dumped...well, > > I'll probably just ignore you. That is not a valid reason to want > > your money back, *even if* you have the right to demand the money > > at any time. In the end, I probably couldn't do anything...motives > > wouldn't effect the court at all, and I'd have to pay you. But that > > doesn't mean that your behavior wasn't petty. > > Given that it's 'my' money under any and all circumstances, anytime > or for any reason I demand it back is valid. Just because you don't > like the timing doesn't make it not-my money. Right. And? > > > > Except he was actually wrong there. No one even thought losing > > > > his soul was a possiblity, and Xander certainly bring it up. He > > > > thought Angel was untrustworthy with a soul. > > > > > > > > And that's not incredibly relevent, the point was that at no > > > > time did he think they'd be better off with Angel dead. > > > > > > You are rebutting your own hypothetical. > > > > No I'm not. Xander has never been in the 'kill them all camp'. He's > > said many things that lead to an implicaiton of that, but only if > > you completely ignore his behavior. > > Until the latest seasons when even broom-arm Dawn could slay > vampires, Xander didn't really have much of a choice in whether vamps > got away. Spike, the only exception to that, I've already covered. Well, no, you didn't. Xander never stood there and argued that Spike should die. > > Spike, as you pointed out, was tied to a chair in his room. > > Likewise, Spike was *completely unable to defend himself* both > > before and after the attempted killing by Xander...yet Xander > > didn't try to kill him then. > > The ropes worked in lieu of a staking. If Xander actually felt he had > some sort of deal or common understanding, would he have tied Spike > up at all? Of course not. However, that was, again, two years before what we're talking about. > > Xander apparently thought it was okay for Spike to live. If he > > didn't, there were thousands of chances for him to off Spike > > without anyone even knowing. > > The only reason Xander tolerated Spike's continued unliving is > because Buffy wanted him to. For Xander's gut feeling about Spike, > check his behaviour in Hush when he thinks Anya's just been drained. Hush was *way* before all this, at which point Spike hadn't helped them at all. Pretending that it reflects how Xander felt about Spike two years later is just silly. > > You'll notice I'm not complaining about Riley, right? Riley seemed > > to feel he could kill Spike at any time. He never accepted Spike at > > all. But he didn't get jealous and try to kill Spike for no good > > reason. > > > > Actually, the analogy doesn't really work, even if he had killed > > Spike after he came back to town, Spike had apparently been selling > > demon eggs, so was in rather several violation of his 'parole'. I > > would probably just give Riley the benefit of the doubt and assume > > he had better motives that 'Spike's sleeping with my ex! I must > > kill him!'. > > Riley was married and had been away from Buffy for months (a year?) > at the time. Completely different situation with Xander and Anya, who > had just split over some confusing spell thing which was for some > reason never explained to anyone by Xander (stupid writers), with > Xander thinking they were on some sort of break and still trying to > get Anya back. Entirely different emotional immediacy involved. That's not the point. The point was that if Riley had killed Spike, he would have had a valid reason: Spike was raising demon eggs. That's a valid reason to Riley to switch from 'Spike is worth keeping around' to 'Spike needs to die'. (Not that Riley ever actually was in the first camp.) Another instance this happened was with the vampire that was drinking Buffy. She went crazy on these fairly harmless vampires, but when the (as far she knew) completely harmless vampire that sucked Riley looked at her, she hesitated, knowing it wasn't right to kill the vampire out of jealousy, and the vampire started to leave. At that point, she came to her senses, realized 'vampire', and killed it. In fact, the entire thing is somewhat debatable: Why did she kill that vampire? Was it because it was a vampire, and thus needed to die, or was it because she was jealous? I think the hesitation was her not wanting to kill out of jealousy, but who knows? However, none of that applies to Xander. He did try to kill out of jealousy. > > > I didn't say you did, I was just being clear that a 'deal' does > > > not in itself imply eternal conditions. > > > > Right. However, Xander did not have tha authority to change them, > > and in fact had no right to decide that sleeping with his > > girlfriend should be a violation of the rules. > > He had every right to change the conditions of whatever 'deal' he was > involved with, regardless of his motives. Being jealous or out of his > mind with rage or feeling betrayed doesn't change what Spike was at > the time. That is *exactly* the point. How *he* felt didn't change the threat of Spike. > > > > When he helped them escape, quite a lot of people said 'They > > > > should have staked him immediately after getting out.', and I > > > > was appalled at that concept. You don't make a deal with your > > > > one enemy to escape a another common enemy and then betray them > > > > after they help you, that's the sort of stuff villians do, not > > > > the heros. > > > > > > The enemy of my enemy is my friend -- until he's served his > > > purpose, then he's my enemy again. If a certain government had > > > remembered this, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (among many > > > others) would not be household names now. > > > > Erm, no. The US shouldn't have helped those people in the first > > place. > > But it did, just as the Scoobies helped Spike escape and avoid the > Initiative. Once you've made your bed, you're allowed to pull off all > the sheets and burn them, you don't have to climb in. That analogy makes no sense. But my point was: You should not betray bad guys. You should act honorable towards them, or, basically, you're the same as them. But that is a *completely different* discussion than the one we are having. Xander trying to get rid of Spike didn't have anything to do with betrayal of Spike. It wasn't 'We're out of danger, now we need to get rid of evil vampire who's a danger to everyone, despite what we agreed to'. It was 'He defiled my woman!'. > > > > I'd have been perfectly okay if they'd said 'You get a fifteen > > > > minute head start.', though. > > > > > > Why not extend the same courtesy to all vampires and bad witches > > > and demons then? Why does contributing to common survival grant > > > him some special status? > > > > Because they aren't unable to kill? Because they hadn't just helped > > you? > > Again, why does contributing to common survival grant him some > special status? He's not any less able to scheme against them if the > right Big Bad comes along. The reason they shouldn't stake him isn't the chip, it's because he just fought at their side. Would it be ethical for him to kill them after agreeing to help? No? Why would it be okay for them to him after agreeing to accept his help? You need to keep bargains you made, period. The courts don't promise immunity to criminals, have them testify, and then remove it and convict them. If you don't want to do that, *don't make deals with bad people*. It's very easy. That's not to say they weren't allowed to ever kill Spike or anything. If they think he's going to kill other people, they could kill him anyway. And *that's* where the chip comes in. They could afford to trust him with the chip. > > > > But Spike at the end of season 4 did not have the same > > > > relationship as Spike in the middle of season 6. Spike at that > > > > point had been helping the gang solid for *at least* a year. > > > > > > And I don't agree that that would ultimately make his sudden death > > > (at Xander's or Giles' or Willy's hands, or by fluke midnight > > > sunrise) regretable. Not until he had a soul (even then... where > > > was the remorse?) > > > > No, I've never siad it would be regrettable. I'm saying that Xander > > had no right to decide to kill Spike *for the reason he decided to > > kill Spike*. He had all the right in the world to kill Spike for, > > basically, any reason at all...but not jealousy. > > This is what it boils down to. I disagree. Any reason is a valid > reason given that it was Spike. Xander's motives could be the worst > or the most noble ever conceived by mortal mind, it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant to *Spike*, it's *not* irrelevant to Xander. It's the same principle as torturing vampires for fun. It's not that it's wrong so much as it shows you are a complete sociopath. It doesn't matter that vampires aren't human, they look, and react to pain, like humans, and *normal people* have a thing called 'empathy' that's supposed to let you sympathize with what other humans are feeling, even if that 'human being' is just a vampire. I'll stop here until I find out if you think it's okay for me to keep a vampire locked in the basement and torture it for fun. -- My hostname is only the last two parts.

2004-02-26 12:02:08-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


David Cheatham wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>No, because he was a soulless vampire it was alright if he died at >>that moment. > > Yes. > > But that has little bearing on whether it would be alright for *Xander* > to kill him at that moment for a *different* reason. > > Just because it is okay for something to happen, doesn't mean it is > okay for a person to do it for any reason. This is the fundemental wall > we keep running into and you keep *completely* ignoring. I'm not ignoring it, I'm telling you it's irrelevant. Xander's motives, good or bad, do not change anything. >>Given that it's 'my' money under any and all circumstances, anytime >>or for any reason I demand it back is valid. Just because you don't >>like the timing doesn't make it not-my money. > > Right. And? So if I walk in on you and my ex, I can demand my money back right there and then. Being insane with jealousy, again, doesn't change the ownership of the money. Asking for it while you're wrapped in a bedsheet and she's holding a pillow over her breasts, again, doesn't change the ownership of the money. [tangent snipped] > At that point, she came to her senses, realized 'vampire', and killed > it. In fact, the entire thing is somewhat debatable: Why did she kill > that vampire? Was it because it was a vampire, and thus needed to die, > or was it because she was jealous? I think the hesitation was her not > wanting to kill out of jealousy, but who knows? > > However, none of that applies to Xander. He did try to kill out of > jealousy. Which is irrelevant because, hey, 'vampire'. >>He had every right to change the conditions of whatever 'deal' he was >>involved with, regardless of his motives. Being jealous or out of his >>mind with rage or feeling betrayed doesn't change what Spike was at >>the time. > > That is *exactly* the point. How *he* felt didn't change the threat of > Spike. Correct. Spike was always a threat. > But my point was: You should not betray bad guys. You should act > honorable towards them, or, basically, you're the same as them. If the bad guy has done worse than break a promise, then it's ok to break a promise to him if it's part of ending his career as a bad guy. We're talking about serial killers here, not school yard tattlers; making all 'bad' actions equal and a single random 'bad' act equal to scores of them is ridiculous. >>Again, why does contributing to common survival grant him some >>special status? He's not any less able to scheme against them if the >>right Big Bad comes along. > > The reason they shouldn't stake him isn't the chip, it's because he > just fought at their side. Would it be ethical for him to kill them > after agreeing to help? No? Why would it be okay for them to him after > agreeing to accept his help? Yes. Vampire. > You need to keep bargains you made, period. The courts don't promise > immunity to criminals, have them testify, and then remove it and > convict them. If you don't want to do that, *don't make deals with bad > people*. It's very easy. If courts negated bargains they'd soon find very few criminals would testify for them. > That's not to say they weren't allowed to ever kill Spike or anything. > If they think he's going to kill other people, they could kill him > anyway. And *that's* where the chip comes in. They could afford to > trust him with the chip. No they couldn't. Adam. Beating/attempted rape of Buffy. FE Sleeper agent. Everyone and everything he hurt or killed or destroyed or turned from the moment Buffy decided to spare him is partly their fault. >>This is what it boils down to. I disagree. Any reason is a valid >>reason given that it was Spike. Xander's motives could be the worst >>or the most noble ever conceived by mortal mind, it's irrelevant. > > It's irrelevant to *Spike*, it's *not* irrelevant to Xander. No it's ultimately irrelevant. A vampire dusted, one less in the world. You don't have to like how it was done, but once it's done it's done. > It's the same principle as torturing vampires for fun. It's not that > it's wrong so much as it shows you are a complete sociopath. It doesn't > matter that vampires aren't human, they look, and react to pain, like > humans, and *normal people* have a thing called 'empathy' that's > supposed to let you sympathize with what other humans are feeling, even > if that 'human being' is just a vampire. > > I'll stop here until I find out if you think it's okay for me to keep a > vampire locked in the basement and torture it for fun. Another comparison that doesn't fit. I'm not talking about torturing vampires, I'm talking about killing them. -- DJensen

2004-02-26 13:13:15-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (jeh@galactica.it)


DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote in message news:<aHW_b.4833 > The enemy of my enemy is my friend -- until he's served his > purpose, then he's my enemy again. If a certain government had > remembered this, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (among many > others) would not be household names now. You know something I think it's time to update that rule about Hitler being introduced into the debate. Maybe in the third millenium we should extend the number of members into that particular club. I think you just lost. gio

2004-02-26 15:46:46-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (jeh@galactica.it)


DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote in message news:<iEp%b.18302$253.1094224@news20.bellglobal.com>... > David Cheatham wrote: > > DJensen wrote: > > Which is irrelevant because, hey, 'vampire'. Not irrelavent B/c from the moment Xander and the rest cut that deal with him they effectively elevated Spike from 'hey, vampire' status. He became a special case vampire. They all acknowledged that in one way or another and once again you may not agree with their choice but you can't deny that they made it. > > >>He had every right to change the conditions of whatever 'deal' he was > >>involved with, regardless of his motives. Being jealous or out of his > >>mind with rage or feeling betrayed doesn't change what Spike was at > >>the time. > > > > That is *exactly* the point. How *he* felt didn't change the threat of > > Spike. > > Correct. Spike was always a threat. Spike was a controllable threat and one they clearly believed they could administer effectively without killing him. The risk was outweighed by the advantage he offered them - it was a calculated risk and it paid off. BTW it occurs to me that if you follow this through to its logical conclusion Xander was entitled to off anyone Anya decided to screw who wasn't human, as indeed she wasn't at that point. Actually she was more of a threat to humanity than any vampire and had far more destructive potential so presumably Xander would have been entitled to kill her too, had he been able to (he wouldn't have been of course, but following your logic that would have been the only impediment; that he wasn't physically capable of doing it. Not that the idea of a man being allowed to kill a woman because she no longer wants to sleep with him (FOR A VERY DAMN GOOD REASON BTW) but prefers for whatever reason to sleep with someone else is and should be repugnant. > > > But my point was: You should not betray bad guys. You should act > > honorable towards them, or, basically, you're the same as them. > > If the bad guy has done worse than break a promise, then it's ok > to break a promise to him if it's part of ending his career as a > bad guy. We're talking about serial killers here, not school yard > tattlers; making all 'bad' actions equal and a single random > 'bad' act equal to scores of them is ridiculous. Not relevant again. They 'knew what he was and yet they still came to him'... Xander and the others cut a deal with the devil and they were stuck with it. Screwing Anya wasn't a deal breaker. And it had nothing to do with ending his career as a bad guy. Which once again is the weakness in your logic. > > >>Again, why does contributing to common survival grant him some > >>special status? He's not any less able to scheme against them if the > >>right Big Bad comes along. Once again a risk they accepted and it paid off. They could, I suppose have decided they were not longer willing to accept that risk but unless they had very good motives for making that decision, it would be hard to justify. Let's see. The Fray scenario comes into being and for some strange reason (maybe he had an old amulet hanging about the crypt he didn't need) Spike doesn't disappear with all the other demons. What to do? What would it say about our 'heroes' if they'd offed him at that point, because they didn't need anymore or b/c that day Buffy had her monthlies? They chose to run the risk that they would always be able to control him or that even if they couldn't they'd be able to dust him before he did any harm. A stupid judgement call? A matter of opinion but......., a judgement call they made with no duress. > > > > The reason they shouldn't stake him isn't the chip, it's because he > > just fought at their side. Would it be ethical for him to kill them > > after agreeing to help? No? Why would it be okay for them to him after > > agreeing to accept his help? > > Yes. Vampire. No. 'Special vampire case'. They chose to pardon him on one condition. He kept his side of the bargain. End of story. They had their moment of deciding whether to keep him around or not. They chose to keep him around. You remember that pesky 'choice' thing that JW is so hot about. The one that vampires don't have but humans do? They made a CHOICE. Choice is what it's all about. You make the right one you're a hero and a good guy - make the wrong one and you aren't. (unless you're Willow, or Xander or Buffy or Giles, of course, for some reason since it's taken as a given that you get a second, a third or a fourth bite of the apple - them's the breaks!) > > > You need to keep bargains you made, period. The courts don't promise > > immunity to criminals, have them testify, and then remove it and > > convict them. If you don't want to do that, *don't make deals with bad > > people*. It's very easy. > > If courts negated bargains they'd soon find very few criminals > would testify for them. > > > That's not to say they weren't allowed to ever kill Spike or anything. > > If they think he's going to kill other people, they could kill him > > anyway. And *that's* where the chip comes in. They could afford to > > trust him with the chip. > > No they couldn't. Adam. Beating/attempted rape of Buffy. FE > Sleeper agent. Everyone and everything he hurt or killed or > destroyed or turned from the moment Buffy decided to spare him is > partly their fault. And that was their choice and they could have changed that choice based on any of these motives and using their judgement - In the case of Adam b/c he was more use to them alive than dusted, the AR b/c it was Buffy's call entirely and given that she knew EXACTLY what the true story was she couldn't bring herself to and that is probably the only thing she did the entire season that actually betrayed the fact that she was still a person and not killing machine, the FE mind-fuck b/c if Buffy had killed someone everytime some magic mojo got the better of them Xander, Giles and Willow would have been history many moons ago. BUT these were not the reason why Xander attacked him AND THAT IS THE POINT!!!! > > >>This is what it boils down to. I disagree. Any reason is a valid > >>reason given that it was Spike. Xander's motives could be the worst > >>or the most noble ever conceived by mortal mind, it's irrelevant. Not it isn't irrelevant. They made a decision based on a certain agreement and Xander was morally obliged, as were the others, to maintain that agreement unless Spike welched on it - which he never did. > > > > It's irrelevant to *Spike*, it's *not* irrelevant to Xander. > > No it's ultimately irrelevant. A vampire dusted, one less in the > world. You don't have to like how it was done, but once it's done > it's done. > > > It's the same principle as torturing vampires for fun. It's not that > > it's wrong so much as it shows you are a complete sociopath. It doesn't > > matter that vampires aren't human, they look, and react to pain, like > > humans, and *normal people* have a thing called 'empathy' that's > > supposed to let you sympathize with what other humans are feeling, even > > if that 'human being' is just a vampire. > > > > I'll stop here until I find out if you think it's okay for me to keep a > > vampire locked in the basement and torture it for fun. > > Another comparison that doesn't fit. I'm not talking about > torturing vampires, I'm talking about killing them. As if that would make any difference to you. Once again you are not being coherent. If it's just a 'thing' it shouldn't matter to you one way or another. gio

2004-02-26 17:30:25-08:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (jeh@galactica.it)


DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net> wrote in message news:<iEp%b.18302$253.1094224@news20.bellglobal.com>... > David Cheatham wrote: > > DJensen wrote: > > > >>Given that it's 'my' money under any and all circumstances, anytime > >>or for any reason I demand it back is valid. Just because you don't > >>like the timing doesn't make it not-my money. > > > > Right. And? > > So if I walk in on you and my ex, I can demand my money back > right there and then. Being insane with jealousy, again, doesn't > change the ownership of the money. Asking for it while you're > wrapped in a bedsheet and she's holding a pillow over her > breasts, again, doesn't change the ownership of the money. But if I made the loan with just one previso - that you let me keep my car in your drive for example - and you let me keep it there, even if I made the loan knowing there was the possibility that you might never pay me back b/c you have a rep as a bad payer - I don't get to ask for the money back except if you park my car on the street. Plus, it does make it clear that it isn't about the money. So the justification that because a loan was made I can suddenly decide that I want it back NOW is a false one and just an excuse, an illicite and cowardly use of power to punish someone not for being a bad payer but for being more successful sexually than I am and that isn't something that anyone with any self-respect, never mind ethics, would want to do. If you think otherwise I'll be sure never to borrow any money from you, although generally I'm not a borrower or a lender. If the guy didn't have any problem about the repayment of the money before, why should he be allowed to demand his pound of flesh now. Anyway the analogy is flawed b/c this wasn't a debt that had a definite cut off date. It was an indefinite loan, not pay me back anytime I decide is right at any given time in the future for any reason that I feel like, just b/c you're in debt. I KNEW you were a bad risk when I lent you the money anyway and surprisingly enough, so far my car has remained in your drive. I treated my woman badly and she turned to you for 'solace' - tough titty, maybe I should have treated her better to begin with if I was that invested. Of course, this was never about loving Anya, this was all about XAnder's insecurities and his sense of entitlement. Too bad for him. Shit happens, and when you aid and abet it with your own cowardice and IMMATURITY, it happens double. Excuse me if I'm shedding no tears for poor little Xander's hurt feelings. He got what he deserved and suprisingly enough Anya didn't even have to resort to her demon powers to make it happen. A bottle of JD was more than enough. This was about consequences, not revenge, and the consequences were principally Xander's and Buffy's and using the 'Vamp' card won't change that. > gio

2004-02-27 11:52:31-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


David Cheatham wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>David Cheatham wrote: >>>It's the same principle as torturing vampires for fun. It's not that >>>it's wrong so much as it shows you are a complete sociopath. It >>>doesn't matter that vampires aren't human, they look, and react to >>>pain, like humans, and *normal people* have a thing called >>>'empathy' that's supposed to let you sympathize with what other >>>humans are feeling, even if that 'human being' is just a vampire. >>> >>>I'll stop here until I find out if you think it's okay for me to >>>keep a vampire locked in the basement and torture it for fun. >> >>Another comparison that doesn't fit. I'm not talking about torturing >>vampires, I'm talking about killing them. > > You know, I think I can prove my entire point with this. Equating killing a demon with torturing one for sadistic glee doesn't do it, sorry. > And you didn't answer the question. Let me know when you have something relevant to add, instead of these tangental comparisons. Good thing you snipped 80% of the post, I might forget that you couldn't address any of it. -- DJensen

2004-02-27 14:56:13+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


DJensen wrote: > David Cheatham wrote: > > > It's the same principle as torturing vampires for fun. It's not that > > it's wrong so much as it shows you are a complete sociopath. It > > doesn't matter that vampires aren't human, they look, and react to > > pain, like humans, and *normal people* have a thing called > > 'empathy' that's supposed to let you sympathize with what other > > humans are feeling, even if that 'human being' is just a vampire. > > > > I'll stop here until I find out if you think it's okay for me to > > keep a vampire locked in the basement and torture it for fun. > > Another comparison that doesn't fit. I'm not talking about torturing > vampires, I'm talking about killing them. You know, I think I can prove my entire point with this. And you didn't answer the question. -- My hostname is only the last two parts.

2004-02-28 00:47:32+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


DJensen wrote: > David Cheatham wrote: > > DJensen wrote: > > > David Cheatham wrote: > > > > It's the same principle as torturing vampires for fun. It's not > > > > that it's wrong so much as it shows you are a complete > > > > sociopath. It doesn't matter that vampires aren't human, they > > > > look, and react to pain, like humans, and *normal people* have > > > > a thing called 'empathy' that's supposed to let you sympathize > > > > with what other humans are feeling, even if that 'human being' > > > > is just a vampire. > > > > > > > > I'll stop here until I find out if you think it's okay for me to > > > > keep a vampire locked in the basement and torture it for fun. > > > > > > Another comparison that doesn't fit. I'm not talking about > > > torturing vampires, I'm talking about killing them. > > > > You know, I think I can prove my entire point with this. > > Equating killing a demon with torturing one for sadistic glee doesn't > do it, sorry. I didn't equate anything, I asked a question. I didn't say it was the same thing. Is it, or is it not, okay for me to lock a vampire up in my basement and torture it for fun? That's the entire question. There's no implication or anything. I suspect you *do* thing that's wrong, and that is unconformatable close to proving my point, so you're refusing to answer. > > And you didn't answer the question. > > Let me know when you have something relevant to add, instead of these > tangental comparisons. Good thing you snipped 80% of the post, I > might forget that you couldn't address any of it. Fine, I'll respond to the rest of it. But you have to answer *my* question. -- My hostname is only the last two parts.

2004-02-28 01:36:43+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


DJensen wrote: > David Cheatham wrote: > > DJensen wrote: > > > No, because he was a soulless vampire it was alright if he died at > > > that moment. > > > > Yes. > > > > But that has little bearing on whether it would be alright for > > Xander to kill him at that moment for a different reason. > > > > Just because it is okay for something to happen, doesn't mean it is > > okay for a person to do it for any reason. This is the fundemental > > wall we keep running into and you keep completely ignoring. > > I'm not ignoring it, I'm telling you it's irrelevant. Xander's > motives, good or bad, do not change anything. You know, about this time it's time to call out Kant. Kant claimed that if we do our duty for any reason other than because it is our duty is not a morally good action. (Don't confuse 'not morally good' with 'morally bad'.) I.e., donating a million dollars to a charity simply to get a tax writeoff is a morally neutral action, not morally good. (Of course, if you pick the most worthy charity, the *choice* of charity can be a morally good action while the *donation* wasn't.) Xander quite clearly had a entirely different reason to kill Spike than duty. It is, indeed, everyone's duty to kill vampires because they are dangerous. (of course, that duty can be weighed against risks to that person. No need to be suicidal about it. It's my duty to *kill* vampires, not randomly attack them and die.) Xander killing in season two would have been a morally good action, as Spike was clearly a dangerous vampire. Xander killing Spike after he sees him sleeping with Anya would have been a morally neutral action at best, because he was't doing his duty by killing dangerous vampire, he was acting out of emotion, and, coincidentally, killing a dangerous vampire. > > > Given that it's 'my' money under any and all circumstances, > > > anytime or for any reason I demand it back is valid. Just because > > > you don't like the timing doesn't make it not-my money. > > > > Right. And? > > So if I walk in on you and my ex, I can demand my money back right > there and then. Being insane with jealousy, again, doesn't change the > ownership of the money. Asking for it while you're wrapped in a > bedsheet and she's holding a pillow over her breasts, again, doesn't > change the ownership of the money. Correct. However, it does > [tangent snipped] Oh, so you can snip, and I can't? > > At that point, she came to her senses, realized 'vampire', and > > killed it. In fact, the entire thing is somewhat debatable: Why did > > she kill that vampire? Was it because it was a vampire, and thus > > needed to die, or was it because she was jealous? I think the > > hesitation was her not wanting to kill out of jealousy, but who > > knows? > > > > However, none of that applies to Xander. He did try to kill out of > > jealousy. > > Which is irrelevant because, hey, 'vampire'. No it's not. > > > He had every right to change the conditions of whatever 'deal' he > > > was involved with, regardless of his motives. Being jealous or > > > out of his mind with rage or feeling betrayed doesn't change what > > > Spike was at the time. > > > > That is exactly the point. How he felt didn't change the threat of > > Spike. > > Correct. Spike was always a threat. And? People have the ability to assess a situtation and decide if something in is a threat or not. If it is a threat, it is their duty to get rid of it. Xander either assessed Spike as a threat or not. Or, to me more exact, he assessed Spike as a threat, period, and then weighed that against the advantages to keeping Spike around. Now, that can go either way, and I can't go around second guessing him. Buffy said yes, Riley said no but deferred to her judgement, etc. However, if Spike is assessed as not keeping around, it is his duty to kill him, and he had plenty of chances. (I mean, Spike was basically helpless.) Failing to do so makes him amazingly immoral. Likewise, if Spike is worth keeping around, than attempting to kill him was a morally wrong thing. Not a *very* wrong thing, somewhat akin to taking a gun everyone needs and breaking it. But, of course, you can decide the risk of keeping the gun around is too great. And of course, Xander had the right to change his mind at any time, and reevaluate the risk of Spike. Except he didn't do that. If anything, Spike would be *less* of a risk sleeping with Anya...it would stop him from stalking Buffy, he can relate to Anya, she recently had to make a transition into not being a killer, etc. (Of course she had also turned back into a demon, but Xander didn't know that and thus it couldn't have affected his judgement.) So Xander resorted to violence against an animal to do something that wasn't his duty, which is troubling, out of the motive of jealousy, which is also troubling, and attempted to destroy something he had judged to be a valuable asset in the fight against evil, which is morally wrong. > > But my point was: You should not betray bad guys. You should act > > honorable towards them, or, basically, you're the same as them. > > If the bad guy has done worse than break a promise, then it's ok to > break a promise to him if it's part of ending his career as a bad > guy. We're talking about serial killers here, not school yard > tattlers; making all 'bad' actions equal and a single random 'bad' > act equal to scores of them is ridiculous. And if everyone lied to everyone else? Would Spike have gone to Buffy to ask her help in stopping Angelus if he'd known she killed the last vampire she 'helped'? Would she be allowed in Willy's to get vital information if she kept killing demons in there? Would the demon with the book about the Mayor's accension have come forward if she killed the last demon who tried to help? Lying to the enemy only works if they're your only enemy *and* the lie defeats them. As teaming up with them, by defination, requires you to have *at least* one other enemy, it seems a bad idea to double cross them. > > > Again, why does contributing to common survival grant him some > > > special status? He's not any less able to scheme against them if > > > the right Big Bad comes along. > > > > The reason they shouldn't stake him isn't the chip, it's because he > > just fought at their side. Would it be ethical for him to kill them > > after agreeing to help? No? Why would it be okay for them to him > > after agreeing to accept his help? > > Yes. Vampire. I actually agree with, but just because I as lying above. Of course it would have been alright for Spike to kill Buffy and the gang. After all, they were about to kill him, right? Hell, that's just plain self-defense. > > You need to keep bargains you made, period. The courts don't promise > > immunity to criminals, have them testify, and then remove it and > > convict them. If you don't want to do that, *don't make deals with > > bad people*. It's very easy. > > If courts negated bargains they'd soon find very few criminals would > testify for them. Which is rather my point. Have you not been watching the show? > > That's not to say they weren't allowed to ever kill Spike or > > anything. If they think he's going to kill other people, they > > could kill him anyway. And *that's* where the chip comes in. They > > could afford to trust him with the chip. > > No they couldn't. Adam. Beating/attempted rape of Buffy. FE Sleeper > agent. Everyone and everything he hurt or killed or destroyed or > turned from the moment Buffy decided to spare him is partly their > fault. *Beating* of Buffy? When exactly did this happen? As for Adam...of course they couldn't trust him! He'd said that repeatedly! Yes, that was entirely the gang's fault, and a rather goofy mistake it was. And Spike was not a 'sleeper' agent. A sleeper agent is someone who knowingly works for one side, and was intregrated a lot time ago in the other side. Spike was a *brainwashed* agent. > > > This is what it boils down to. I disagree. Any reason is a valid > > > reason given that it was Spike. Xander's motives could be the > > > worst or the most noble ever conceived by mortal mind, it's > > > irrelevant. > > > > It's irrelevant to Spike, it's not irrelevant to Xander. > > No it's ultimately irrelevant. A vampire dusted, one less in the > world. You don't have to like how it was done, but once it's done > it's done. And that's exactly what I was saying...I don't like how it was done. -- My hostname is only the last two parts.

2004-02-28 15:15:05-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


David Cheatham wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>David Cheatham wrote: >>>Just because it is okay for something to happen, doesn't mean it is >>>okay for a person to do it for any reason. This is the fundemental >>>wall we keep running into and you keep completely ignoring. >> >>I'm not ignoring it, I'm telling you it's irrelevant. Xander's >>motives, good or bad, do not change anything. > > You know, about this time it's time to call out Kant. > > Kant claimed that if we do our duty for any reason other than because > it is our duty is not a morally good action. (Don't confuse 'not > morally good' with 'morally bad'.) I.e., donating a million dollars to > a charity simply to get a tax writeoff is a morally neutral action, not > morally good. (Of course, if you pick the most worthy charity, the > *choice* of charity can be a morally good action while the *donation* > wasn't.) Whatever your reason for giving a million dollars to a children's hospital or a homeless shelter network, it is morally superior to *not* giving the money (regardless of the reason). Why? Because that million dollars is just as needed and will be put to use just as well as if you donated it to spite your enemies, or because you genuinely felt it was right, or because you wanted credit for it, or to screw your children out of inheriting it. Assuming, of course, that it's moral for the charity to accept the money (ie, it's not Nazi gold, or profit from selling poison to children, or landmines to warlords) which has its own can of grey worms. > Xander quite clearly had a entirely different reason to kill Spike than > duty. It is, indeed, everyone's duty to kill vampires because they are > dangerous. (of course, that duty can be weighed against risks to that > person. No need to be suicidal about it. It's my duty to *kill* > vampires, not randomly attack them and die.) > > Xander killing in season two would have been a morally good action, as > Spike was clearly a dangerous vampire. Xander killing Spike after he > sees him sleeping with Anya would have been a morally neutral action at > best, because he was't doing his duty by killing dangerous vampire, he > was acting out of emotion, and, coincidentally, killing a dangerous > vampire. In other words in your opinion it wouldn't be wrong for Xander to have killed Spike then, it would have been an amoral action (because of the motivation) *at worst*. Why are we disagreeing now? As far as I can see, an amoral reason and an irrelevant reason aren't so different. >>>>Given that it's 'my' money under any and all circumstances, >>>>anytime or for any reason I demand it back is valid. Just because >>>>you don't like the timing doesn't make it not-my money. >>> >>>Right. And? >> >>So if I walk in on you and my ex, I can demand my money back right >>there and then. Being insane with jealousy, again, doesn't change the >>ownership of the money. Asking for it while you're wrapped in a >>bedsheet and she's holding a pillow over her breasts, again, doesn't >>change the ownership of the money. > > Correct. However, it does I think you started a sentence here and forgot to complete it. (Or is this quantum property theory, where the money is both mine and not mine simultaneously?) >>[tangent snipped] > > Oh, so you can snip, and I can't? I snipped a tangent, I didn't snip all but the last two lines of a post. >>>At that point, she came to her senses, realized 'vampire', and >>>killed it. In fact, the entire thing is somewhat debatable: Why did >>>she kill that vampire? Was it because it was a vampire, and thus >>>needed to die, or was it because she was jealous? I think the >>>hesitation was her not wanting to kill out of jealousy, but who >>>knows? >>> >>>However, none of that applies to Xander. He did try to kill out of >>>jealousy. >> >>Which is irrelevant because, hey, 'vampire'. > > No it's not. See above. >>>>He had every right to change the conditions of whatever 'deal' he >>>>was involved with, regardless of his motives. Being jealous or >>>>out of his mind with rage or feeling betrayed doesn't change what >>>>Spike was at the time. >>> >>>That is exactly the point. How he felt didn't change the threat of >>>Spike. >> >>Correct. Spike was always a threat. > > And? > > People have the ability to assess a situtation and decide if something > in is a threat or not. If it is a threat, it is their duty to get rid > of it. If something is always a threat, then it's up to them when to deal with it. I didn't say Spike became more of a threat (or less of one, for that matter) at that moment. > Xander either assessed Spike as a threat or not. Or, to me more exact, > he assessed Spike as a threat, period, and then weighed that against > the advantages to keeping Spike around. Now, that can go either way, > and I can't go around second guessing him. Buffy said yes, Riley said > no but deferred to her judgement, etc. > > However, if Spike is assessed as not keeping around, it is his duty to > kill him, and he had plenty of chances. (I mean, Spike was basically > helpless.) Failing to do so makes him amazingly immoral. Which I said elsewhere in this thread and again in that post -- Spike should have be staked long ago and failing to was immoral and made them all culpable for everything he did between then and getting a soul. > Likewise, if Spike is worth keeping around, than attempting to kill him > was a morally wrong thing. Not a *very* wrong thing, somewhat akin to > taking a gun everyone needs and breaking it. But, of course, you can > decide the risk of keeping the gun around is too great. > > And of course, Xander had the right to change his mind at any time, and > reevaluate the risk of Spike. > > Except he didn't do that. I never claimed Xander put any thought (at the time) into killing Spike, I claimed the opposite in fact. I maintain that it's irrevelant though. I also remind you that Buffy was the only one who made the decision to keep Spike, the rest deferred to her, not to his potential value. > If anything, Spike would be *less* of a risk > sleeping with Anya...it would stop him from stalking Buffy, he can > relate to Anya, she recently had to make a transition into not being a > killer, etc. (Of course she had also turned back into a demon, but > Xander didn't know that and thus it couldn't have affected his > judgement.) We don't know what might have come from that. It could have been a one night stand (they certainly didn't hook up again, and the post-coital exchange suggested they both regreted it and/or realized they did it because they were inebriated and depressed) or it could have been a long-term relationship. Or Spike could have betrayed her and pushed her into an even more deadly bout of vengence. We can't know, so it shouldn't be factored in. > So Xander resorted to violence against an animal to do something that > wasn't his duty, which is troubling, out of the motive of jealousy, > which is also troubling, and attempted to destroy something he had > judged to be a valuable asset in the fight against evil, which is > morally wrong. When did Spike turn into an animal? Here I thought he was a demon the entire time. >>>But my point was: You should not betray bad guys. You should act >>>honorable towards them, or, basically, you're the same as them. >> >>If the bad guy has done worse than break a promise, then it's ok to >>break a promise to him if it's part of ending his career as a bad >>guy. We're talking about serial killers here, not school yard >>tattlers; making all 'bad' actions equal and a single random 'bad' >>act equal to scores of them is ridiculous. > > And if everyone lied to everyone else? Point of interest, all the main characters lied to each other at least once. I guess, then, they're all just as bad as Angelus and the Master and Glory. We are talking about people here, not paragons of morality. > Would Spike have gone to Buffy > to ask her help in stopping Angelus if he'd known she killed the last > vampire she 'helped'? Would she be allowed in Willy's to get vital > information if she kept killing demons in there? Would the demon with > the book about the Mayor's accension have come forward if she killed > the last demon who tried to help? All part of risk assessment. If you believed your cause was great enough, or thought you could get away, you probably would. > Lying to the enemy only works if they're your only enemy *and* the lie > defeats them. As teaming up with them, by defination, requires you to > have *at least* one other enemy, it seems a bad idea to double cross > them. We're talking about breaking an implied promise here (the escape from the base) and not a lie per se (at least I don't recall anyone saying "I'll never break this eternal deal between the Scoobies and Mr. The Bloody"). Besides, if you lied/break your promise and kill the guy before any of the other bad guys find out... >>>The reason they shouldn't stake him isn't the chip, it's because he >>>just fought at their side. Would it be ethical for him to kill them >>>after agreeing to help? No? Why would it be okay for them to him >>>after agreeing to accept his help? >> >>Yes. Vampire. > > I actually agree with, but just because I as lying above. > > Of course it would have been alright for Spike to kill Buffy and the > gang. After all, they were about to kill him, right? Hell, that's just > plain self-defense. I hope you aren't making some sort of appeal to emotion here. 'No! It would be wrong of him to try killing them because I *loooooove* Willow! You're horrible! Etc.' </nimue> :) >>>You need to keep bargains you made, period. The courts don't promise >>>immunity to criminals, have them testify, and then remove it and >>>convict them. If you don't want to do that, *don't make deals with >>>bad people*. It's very easy. >> >>If courts negated bargains they'd soon find very few criminals would >>testify for them. > > Which is rather my point. Have you not been watching the show? I must have missed all the parts where, because of her reputation for killing demons, Clem refused to watch Dawn, and Willy took the beatings and kept his lips sealed, and countless vampire minions didn't crack under her use of threats and torture. Or my point could be that the court system and the rest of the world/Buffyverse aren't the same thing. >>>could kill him anyway. And *that's* where the chip comes in. They >>>could afford to trust him with the chip. >> >>No they couldn't. Adam. Beating/attempted rape of Buffy. FE Sleeper >>agent. Everyone and everything he hurt or killed or destroyed or >>turned from the moment Buffy decided to spare him is partly their >>fault. > > *Beating* of Buffy? When exactly did this happen? Spike discovers his chip doesn't count Buffy, so "you came back wrong" and they start slugging it out. > As for Adam...of course they couldn't trust him! He'd said that > repeatedly! Yes, that was entirely the gang's fault, and a rather goofy > mistake it was. Their stupidity doesn't make him trustworthy, certainly not when he admitted he couldn't be trusted. > And Spike was not a 'sleeper' agent. A sleeper agent is someone who > knowingly works for one side, and was intregrated a lot time ago in the > other side. Spike was a *brainwashed* agent. Whatever the term you want to use. I guess you concede that they could not afford to trust him just because of the chip. >>>>This is what it boils down to. I disagree. Any reason is a valid >>>>reason given that it was Spike. Xander's motives could be the >>>>worst or the most noble ever conceived by mortal mind, it's >>>>irrelevant. >>> >>>It's irrelevant to Spike, it's not irrelevant to Xander. >> >>No it's ultimately irrelevant. A vampire dusted, one less in the >>world. You don't have to like how it was done, but once it's done >>it's done. > > And that's exactly what I was saying...I don't like how it was done. But you call it an amoral action anyway. If you were one of the Scoobies would you hate Xander for doing it out of rage and jealousy? Would you mourn Spike? I wouldn't. -- DJensen

2004-02-28 15:31:57-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


David Cheatham wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>David Cheatham wrote: >>>>>It's the same principle as torturing vampires for fun. It's not >>>>>that it's wrong so much as it shows you are a complete >>>>>sociopath. It doesn't matter that vampires aren't human, they >>>>>look, and react to pain, like humans, and *normal people* have >>>>>a thing called 'empathy' that's supposed to let you sympathize >>>>>with what other humans are feeling, even if that 'human being' >>>>>is just a vampire. >>>>> >>>>>I'll stop here until I find out if you think it's okay for me to >>>>>keep a vampire locked in the basement and torture it for fun. >>>> >>>>Another comparison that doesn't fit. I'm not talking about >>>>torturing vampires, I'm talking about killing them. >>> >>>You know, I think I can prove my entire point with this. >> >>Equating killing a demon with torturing one for sadistic glee doesn't >>do it, sorry. > > I didn't equate anything, I asked a question. I didn't say it was the > same thing. > > Is it, or is it not, okay for me to lock a vampire up in my basement > and torture it for fun? > > That's the entire question. There's no implication or anything. > > I suspect you *do* thing that's wrong, and that is unconformatable > close to proving my point, so you're refusing to answer. Before I answer, explain to me why it would be wrong, precisely. -- DJensen

2004-02-29 03:28:48+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


DJensen wrote: > David Cheatham wrote: > > DJensen wrote: > > > David Cheatham wrote: > > > > > > It's the same principle as torturing vampires for fun. It's > > > > > > not that it's wrong so much as it shows you are a complete > > > > > > sociopath. It doesn't matter that vampires aren't human, > > > > > > they look, and react to pain, like humans, and *normal > > > > > > people* have a thing called 'empathy' that's supposed to > > > > > > let you sympathize with what other humans are feeling, even > > > > > > if that 'human being' is just a vampire. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll stop here until I find out if you think it's okay for > > > > > > me to keep a vampire locked in the basement and torture it > > > > > > for fun. > > > > > > > > > > Another comparison that doesn't fit. I'm not talking about > > > > > torturing vampires, I'm talking about killing them. > > > > > > > > You know, I think I can prove my entire point with this. > > > > > > Equating killing a demon with torturing one for sadistic glee > > > doesn't do it, sorry. > > > > I didn't equate anything, I asked a question. I didn't say it was > > the same thing. > > > > Is it, or is it not, okay for me to lock a vampire up in my basement > > and torture it for fun? > > > > That's the entire question. There's no implication or anything. > > > > I suspect you do thing that's wrong, and that is unconformatable > > close to proving my point, so you're refusing to answer. > > Before I answer, explain to me why it would be wrong, precisely. I have to explain why something would be wrong before *you* tell me if *you* think it's wrong? That's an interesting concept, but rather insane. I didn't even say I *did* think it as wrong. However, if you want, I'll answer it first: I think it's wrong to torture vampires for fun. Now you. Do you think torturing vampires for fun is wrong or not? -- My hostname is only the last two parts.

2004-02-29 03:28:53+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


DJensen wrote: > David Cheatham wrote: > > DJensen wrote: > > > David Cheatham wrote: > > > > Just because it is okay for something to happen, doesn't mean > > > > it is okay for a person to do it for any reason. This is the > > > > fundemental wall we keep running into and you keep completely > > > > ignoring. > > > > > > I'm not ignoring it, I'm telling you it's irrelevant. Xander's > > > motives, good or bad, do not change anything. > > > > You know, about this time it's time to call out Kant. > > > > Kant claimed that if we do our duty for any reason other than > > because it is our duty is not a morally good action. (Don't confuse > > 'not morally good' with 'morally bad'.) I.e., donating a million > > dollars to a charity simply to get a tax writeoff is a morally > > neutral action, not morally good. (Of course, if you pick the most > > worthy charity, the choice of charity can be a morally good action > > while the donation wasn't.) > > Whatever your reason for giving a million dollars to a children's > hospital or a homeless shelter network, it is morally superior to not > giving the money (regardless of the reason). It is morally better to give the money to, say, a real charity, instead of some scam charity that takes 95% off the top. And it's morally good to give it to charity instead of some other hypotetical, identical way of getting a tax write off. > Why? Because that million dollars is just as needed and will be put > to use just as well as if you donated it to spite your enemies, or > because you genuinely felt it was right, or because you wanted credit > for it, or to screw your children out of inheriting it. There's where we differ. Morally good acts are only morally good if they were done *to* better the world. (Let's not let this dissolve into an argument of what 'better the world' mean, we know that is debateable.) If you hold an elevator door because you suddenly can't remember if you're already on the right floor, and someone gets on, you didn't do anything to better the world. You *did* better the world with your actions, but your actions were not done *to* better the world, that was just a random side effect. And hence me, and Kant, both agree that your act wasn't morally good, but morally neutral. > Assuming, of course, that it's moral for the charity to accept the > money (ie, it's not Nazi gold, or profit from selling poison to > children, or landmines to warlords) which has its own can of grey > worms. There's obviously a gray area there, but I actually come down on the opposite side you'd think. As long as the money doesn't belong to someone else, the charity shouldn't hesitate to take it. > > Xander quite clearly had a entirely different reason to kill Spike > > than duty. It is, indeed, everyone's duty to kill vampires because > > they are dangerous. (of course, that duty can be weighed against > > risks to that person. No need to be suicidal about it. It's my duty > > to kill vampires, not randomly attack them and die.) > > > > Xander killing in season two would have been a morally good action, > > as Spike was clearly a dangerous vampire. Xander killing Spike > > after he sees him sleeping with Anya would have been a morally > > neutral action at best, because he was't doing his duty by killing > > dangerous vampire, he was acting out of emotion, and, > > coincidentally, killing a dangerous vampire. > > In other words in your opinion it wouldn't be wrong for Xander to > have killed Spike then, it would have been an amoral action (because > of the motivation) *at worst*. Why are we disagreeing now? As far as > I can see, an amoral reason and an irrelevant reason aren't so > different. No, I said it would be one *at best*, not at worst. Xander resorted to ax-play because he was angry and jealous. It's like he finds Anya having sex on his bed and he starts chopping the bed to shreds. And it's actually worse. Like I said, while vampires may not be humans, they look and act like humans. Humans have something called empathy that's supposedcause them to sympathized with humans and things like humans. (Witness Buffy talking to the April robot as it ran down.) Like it or not, that does say something about Xander. It actually rather says he was right about not wanting to get married because he might turn out to be his father! > > > > > Given that it's 'my' money under any and all circumstances, > > > > > anytime or for any reason I demand it back is valid. Just > > > > > because you don't like the timing doesn't make it not-my > > > > > money. > > > > > > > > Right. And? > > > > > > So if I walk in on you and my ex, I can demand my money back right > > > there and then. Being insane with jealousy, again, doesn't change > > > the ownership of the money. Asking for it while you're wrapped in > > > a bedsheet and she's holding a pillow over her breasts, again, > > > doesn't change the ownership of the money. > > > > Correct. However, it does > > I think you started a sentence here and forgot to complete it. (Or is > this quantum property theory, where the money is both mine and not > mine simultaneously?) I could have sworn I finished that line. Anyway: Correct. However, it does you as rather petty. You can do completely legal acts, and even acts that supposedly are moral, out of other motives. If I let a escaped murderer hide out in my attic, because he swears he's innocent, until I notice he's made a long distance call and can't currently pay for it, so I turn him in, I don't suddenly become some sort of moral paradigm. Either I think he's innocent (and I think it's wrong to turn in innocent people), and thus turning him in was wrong, or I think he's guilty (or it's okay to turn in innocent people who been convicted to let the justice system sort it out), and thus not turning him in was wrong. But, regardless of the right and wrong, it shows something else about me...that I'm petty and not to be trusted. Killing Spike had very little 'wrong' attached to it. It's even possible to argue that it had no wrong at all. But that doesn't mean that Xander *didn't* go into a jealous rage with an axe against someone his ex had slept with, just that he didn't he didn't target a human with the axe. > > > > > He had every right to change the conditions of whatever > > > > > 'deal' he was involved with, regardless of his motives. Being > > > > > jealous or out of his mind with rage or feeling betrayed > > > > > doesn't change what Spike was at the time. > > > > > > > > That is exactly the point. How he felt didn't change the threat > > > > of Spike. > > > > > > Correct. Spike was always a threat. > > > > And? > > > > People have the ability to assess a situtation and decide if > > something in is a threat or not. If it is a threat, it is their > > duty to get rid of it. > > If something is always a threat, then it's up to them when to deal > with it. I didn't say Spike became more of a threat (or less of one, > for that matter) at that moment. We agree here. > > Xander either assessed Spike as a threat or not. Or, to me more > > exact, he assessed Spike as a threat, period, and then weighed that > > against the advantages to keeping Spike around. Now, that can go > > either way, and I can't go around second guessing him. Buffy said > > yes, Riley said no but deferred to her judgement, etc. > > > > However, if Spike is assessed as not keeping around, it is his duty > > to kill him, and he had plenty of chances. (I mean, Spike was > > basically helpless.) Failing to do so makes him amazingly immoral. > > Which I said elsewhere in this thread and again in that post -- Spike > should have be staked long ago and failing to was immoral and made > them all culpable for everything he did between then and getting a > soul. Sure, I'll go with that. However, that doesn't work retroactively. Just because he *should* have been killed years ago doesn't mean it's okay to kill him now. (Note I'm not saying it's *not* okay to kill him now, but that it's not okay *for that reason*.) Otherwise it would be okay to stake souled Spike adn souled Angel, or kill Dawn because it would have been okay to destroy the Key when it was energy, or even kill Xander because his parents could have gotten an abortion. > > Likewise, if Spike is worth keeping around, than attempting to kill > > him was a morally wrong thing. Not a very wrong thing, somewhat > > akin to taking a gun everyone needs and breaking it. But, of > > course, you can decide the risk of keeping the gun around is too > > great. > > > > And of course, Xander had the right to change his mind at any time, > > and reevaluate the risk of Spike. > > > > Except he didn't do that. > > I never claimed Xander put any thought (at the time) into killing > Spike, I claimed the opposite in fact. I maintain that it's > irrevelant though. I also remind you that Buffy was the only one who > made the decision to keep Spike, the rest deferred to her, not to his > potential value. BUffy had made the decision? What? Since when? And how on earth would they have deferred to Buffy while she was dead? > > If anything, Spike would be less of a risk > > sleeping with Anya...it would stop him from stalking Buffy, he can > > relate to Anya, she recently had to make a transition into not > > being a killer, etc. (Of course she had also turned back into a > > demon, but Xander didn't know that and thus it couldn't have > > affected his judgement.) > > We don't know what might have come from that. It could have been a > one night stand (they certainly didn't hook up again, and the > post-coital exchange suggested they both regreted it and/or realized > they did it because they were inebriated and depressed) or it could > have been a long-term relationship. Or Spike could have betrayed her > and pushed her into an even more deadly bout of vengence. We can't > know, so it shouldn't be factored in. Well, no, I was just saying that it's not any sort of obvious thing that's just barely not agianst the rules. Like him hooking up with Drusilla or something, something that would obviously lead to him causing harm even if he couldn't physically injury someone himself. > > So Xander resorted to violence against an animal to do something > > that wasn't his duty, which is troubling, out of the motive of > > jealousy, which is also troubling, and attempted to destroy > > something he had judged to be a valuable asset in the fight against > > evil, which is morally wrong. > > When did Spike turn into an animal? Here I thought he was a demon the > entire time. Despite people liking to call vampires 'dead', they are clearly alive in the strictest sense. They reproduce, they grow (or, at least, heal), etc. Calling them animals is the best analogy you can make to the real world. Possibly one like sharks. > > > > But my point was: You should not betray bad guys. You should act > > > > honorable towards them, or, basically, you're the same as them. > > > > > > If the bad guy has done worse than break a promise, then it's ok > > > to break a promise to him if it's part of ending his career as a > > > bad guy. We're talking about serial killers here, not school yard > > > tattlers; making all 'bad' actions equal and a single random 'bad' > > > act equal to scores of them is ridiculous. > > > > And if everyone lied to everyone else? > > Point of interest, all the main characters lied to each other at > least once. I guess, then, they're all just as bad as Angelus and the > Master and Glory. We are talking about people here, not paragons of > morality. Yeah, but that's not the point. You can argue the morality all you want, but in this show, most villians and good guys don't betray each other. Either direction. This has actually saved the world a few times. Spike's done it *twice*. When he was evil. The first time saved the world, and the second time when he told Buffy where to find the kidnapped Xander and Willow, which may have saved Cordelia. > > Would Spike have gone to Buffy > > to ask her help in stopping Angelus if he'd known she killed the > > last vampire she 'helped'? Would she be allowed in Willy's to get > > vital information if she kept killing demons in there? Would the > > demon with the book about the Mayor's accension have come forward > > if she killed the last demon who tried to help? > > All part of risk assessment. If you believed your cause was great > enough, or thought you could get away, you probably would. And then you'd be screwed the next time you needed help. The analogy I use is homocide cops arresting hookers for prostition when a hooker is killed. They'll get a lot of hookers. They won't locate any killers. > > Lying to the enemy only works if they're your only enemy and the lie > > defeats them. As teaming up with them, by defination, requires you > > to have *at least* one other enemy, it seems a bad idea to double > > cross them. > > We're talking about breaking an implied promise here (the escape from > the base) and not a lie per se (at least I don't recall anyone saying > "I'll never break this eternal deal between the Scoobies and Mr. The > Bloody"). Besides, if you lied/break your promise and kill the guy > before any of the other bad guys find out... The door breaks down and a demon comes inside. Spike comes in and breaks the demon's neck. The demon falls to the floor. Spike: 'Nasty sort of fellow. Lucky for you blighters I was here, eh?' Giles: 'Yes, thank you. Although your heroism has been slightly muted by the fact that you were helping Adam to start a war that would kill us all.' Xander: 'You probably just saved us so we wouldn't stake you right here.' Spike: 'Did it work?' Spike get staked through the heart by Buffy, who's revealed to be standing behind him in the open door. He dusts. Buffy: 'No.' That's how it works in my version of events. ;) In reality: Spike: 'Did it work?' They all get up. Spike: 'Well, then everything's all right. And we all get to be not staked through the heart. Good work, team.' Buffy and Riley open the door. Giles: 'Buffy.' Willow comes over and hugs her. Willow: 'Wasn't it amazing?' Xander: 'You were great.' Buffy: 'We were great.' Riley: 'We still got men out there.' Spike: 'Well, let's go save 'em, by gum.' Buffy: 'You guys get to the exits, get 'em open.' She looks at Riley. Buffy: 'You, organize the soldiers, pull 'em back. I'll take point.' She starts walking out. Willow: 'Are you up to this?' Buffy: 'I am.' She knocks out a demon. And we cut to some office with MIB. ----------- And then we don't any of them until the next episode, and we don't even see Spike until next season. So we don't know exactly what happened. It's entirely possible Spike split during the fight, or got held back and was left for dead, or they tried to kill him and he ran, or whatever. But killing Spike outside the Initiative isn't the most horrible thing in the world. However, intentionally lying to him wouldn't have been the best thing on their part. > > > > The reason they shouldn't stake him isn't the chip, it's > > > > because he just fought at their side. Would it be ethical for > > > > him to kill them after agreeing to help? No? Why would it be > > > > okay for them to him after agreeing to accept his help? > > > > > > Yes. Vampire. > > > > I actually agree with, but just because I as lying above. > > > > Of course it would have been alright for Spike to kill Buffy and the > > gang. After all, they were about to kill him, right? Hell, that's > > just plain self-defense. > > I hope you aren't making some sort of appeal to emotion here. > > 'No! It would be wrong of him to try killing them because I loooooove > Willow! You're horrible! Etc.' </nimue> :) No, actually, I was being serious, and I've actually argued it's okay for Spike to kill Slayer. The rational for killing vampires is > > > > You need to keep bargains you made, period. The courts don't > > > > promise immunity to criminals, have them testify, and then > > > > remove it and convict them. If you don't want to do that, > > > > *don't make deals with bad people*. It's very easy. > > > > > > If courts negated bargains they'd soon find very few criminals > > > would testify for them. > > > > Which is rather my point. Have you not been watching the show? > > I must have missed all the parts where, because of her reputation for > killing demons, Clem refused to watch Dawn, and Willy took the > beatings and kept his lips sealed, and countless vampire minions > didn't crack under her use of threats and torture. She had a reputation for not killing harmless demons, which is *why* Clem was willing to help. > Or my point could be that the court system and the rest of the > world/Buffyverse aren't the same thing. Well, no, they obviously aren't. > > > > could kill him anyway. And *that's* where the chip comes in. > > > > They could afford to trust him with the chip. > > > > > > No they couldn't. Adam. Beating/attempted rape of Buffy. FE > > > Sleeper agent. Everyone and everything he hurt or killed or > > > destroyed or turned from the moment Buffy decided to spare him is > > > partly their fault. > > > > Beating of Buffy? When exactly did this happen? > > Spike discovers his chip doesn't count Buffy, so "you came back > wrong" and they start slugging it out. Those weren't beatings, those were self defense. The only reason Spike even found out he could hurt Buffy is that he hit her *back*. > > As for Adam...of course they couldn't trust him! He'd said that > > repeatedly! Yes, that was entirely the gang's fault, and a rather > > goofy mistake it was. > > Their stupidity doesn't make him trustworthy, certainly not when he > admitted he couldn't be trusted. Of course not. I'm agreeing with you here. That was entirely their fault. > > And Spike was not a 'sleeper' agent. A sleeper agent is someone who > > knowingly works for one side, and was intregrated a lot time ago in > > the other side. Spike was a brainwashed agent. > > Whatever the term you want to use. > > I guess you concede that they could not afford to trust him just > because of the chip. Right. However, that certainly didn't apply in the middle of season six! > > > > > This is what it boils down to. I disagree. Any reason is a > > > > > valid reason given that it was Spike. Xander's motives could > > > > > be the worst or the most noble ever conceived by mortal mind, > > > > > it's irrelevant. > > > > > > > > It's irrelevant to Spike, it's not irrelevant to Xander. > > > > > > No it's ultimately irrelevant. A vampire dusted, one less in the > > > world. You don't have to like how it was done, but once it's done > > > it's done. > > > > And that's exactly what I was saying...I don't like how it was done. > > But you call it an amoral action anyway. If you were one of the > Scoobies would you hate Xander for doing it out of rage and jealousy? > Would you mourn Spike? I wouldn't. I wouldn't hate him, I'd just worry he was going to do other acts of violence out of jealousy. He probably wouldn't *kill* a person, but who knows exactly where he'd stop? -- My hostname is only the last two parts.

2004-02-29 16:10:24-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


David Cheatham wrote: > DJensen wrote: > >>Before I answer, explain to me why it would be wrong, precisely. > > I have to explain why something would be wrong before *you* tell me if > *you* think it's wrong? > > That's an interesting concept, but rather insane. I didn't even say I > *did* think it as wrong. However, if you want, I'll answer it first: I > think it's wrong to torture vampires for fun. I don't see how it's "insane". It seemed to me you were implying you thought it was wrong, but anyway... > Now you. Do you think torturing vampires for fun is wrong or not? Is it wrong to torture a demon (not a person, not an animal)? I don't know, but I'm inclined to say it's not. Could it be bad for the torturer's state of mind? Probably, but does that make it wrong? Was it wrong for the COW to keep that vampire in a box and feed him pills? -- DJensen

2004-02-29 18:41:53-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


David Cheatham wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>David Cheatham wrote: >>>Kant claimed that if we do our duty for any reason other than >>>because it is our duty is not a morally good action. (Don't confuse >>>'not morally good' with 'morally bad'.) I.e., donating a million >>>dollars to a charity simply to get a tax writeoff is a morally >>>neutral action, not morally good. (Of course, if you pick the most >>>worthy charity, the choice of charity can be a morally good action >>>while the donation wasn't.) >> >>Whatever your reason for giving a million dollars to a children's >>hospital or a homeless shelter network, it is morally superior to not >>giving the money (regardless of the reason). > > It is morally better to give the money to, say, a real charity, instead > of some scam charity that takes 95% off the top. And it's morally good > to give it to charity instead of some other hypotetical, identical way > of getting a tax write off. Agreed. >>Why? Because that million dollars is just as needed and will be put >>to use just as well as if you donated it to spite your enemies, or >>because you genuinely felt it was right, or because you wanted credit >>for it, or to screw your children out of inheriting it. > > There's where we differ. Morally good acts are only morally good if > they were done *to* better the world. (Let's not let this dissolve into > an argument of what 'better the world' mean, we know that is > debateable.) > > If you hold an elevator door because you suddenly can't remember if > you're already on the right floor, and someone gets on, you didn't do > anything to better the world. You *did* better the world with your > actions, but your actions were not done *to* better the world, that was > just a random side effect. > > And hence me, and Kant, both agree that your act wasn't morally good, > but morally neutral. Good intentions are fine and dandy, but I'm not about to subtract points on the scoreboard in the sky because your (good-)act and its good-consequences didn't come from good-intent. If said hypothetical charity found out that Mr. Moneybags only gave them money for the tax write-off, should they return the money? If the intent is crucial, shouldn't they? >>>Xander killing in season two would have been a morally good action, >>>as Spike was clearly a dangerous vampire. Xander killing Spike >>>after he sees him sleeping with Anya would have been a morally >>>neutral action at best, because he was't doing his duty by killing >>>dangerous vampire, he was acting out of emotion, and, >>>coincidentally, killing a dangerous vampire. >> >>In other words in your opinion it wouldn't be wrong for Xander to >>have killed Spike then, it would have been an amoral action (because >>of the motivation) *at worst*. Why are we disagreeing now? As far as >>I can see, an amoral reason and an irrelevant reason aren't so >>different. > > No, I said it would be one *at best*, not at worst. Same difference as far as I'm concerned. +1, 0, -1; moral, amoral, immoral. >>>>So if I walk in on you and my ex, I can demand my money back right >>>>there and then. Being insane with jealousy, again, doesn't change >>>>the ownership of the money. Asking for it while you're wrapped in >>>>a bedsheet and she's holding a pillow over her breasts, again, >>>>doesn't change the ownership of the money. [snip] > Anyway: Correct. However, it does you as rather petty. > > You can do completely legal acts, and even acts that supposedly are > moral, out of other motives. > > If I let a escaped murderer hide out in my attic, because he swears > he's innocent, until I notice he's made a long distance call and can't > currently pay for it, so I turn him in, I don't suddenly become some > sort of moral paradigm. > > Either I think he's innocent (and I think it's wrong to turn in > innocent people), and thus turning him in was wrong, or I think he's > guilty (or it's okay to turn in innocent people who been convicted to > let the justice system sort it out), and thus not turning him in was > wrong. This scenario is only comparable if you went out of your mind with rage at seeing the long-distance bill. Xander's "betrayal" or "broken promise" or "reneging on the deal" (whatever you want to call it, since you seem to see it that way) was not calculated. > But, regardless of the right and wrong, it shows something else about > me...that I'm petty and not to be trusted. Neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion. > Killing Spike had very little 'wrong' attached to it. It's even > possible to argue that it had no wrong at all. But that doesn't mean > that Xander *didn't* go into a jealous rage with an axe against someone > his ex had slept with, just that he didn't he didn't target a human > with the axe. And as I've said, that's the difference. Believe me if it had been a human at the other end of the axe I wouldn't be shrugging this off or excusing it. >>>However, if Spike is assessed as not keeping around, it is his duty >>>to kill him, and he had plenty of chances. (I mean, Spike was >>>basically helpless.) Failing to do so makes him amazingly immoral. >> >>Which I said elsewhere in this thread and again in that post -- Spike >>should have be staked long ago and failing to was immoral and made >>them all culpable for everything he did between then and getting a >>soul. > > Sure, I'll go with that. > > However, that doesn't work retroactively. Just because he *should* have > been killed years ago doesn't mean it's okay to kill him now. (Note I'm > not saying it's *not* okay to kill him now, but that it's not okay *for > that reason*.) If he should have been staked long ago and his threat index was constant, it's just a matter of timing. > Otherwise it would be okay to stake souled Spike adn souled Angel, or > kill Dawn because it would have been okay to destroy the Key when it > was energy, or even kill Xander because his parents could have gotten > an abortion. I stipulated that gaining a soul changed the situation, I did not say or imply that because he was a threat in some previous incarnation, he should be treated as the same threat now. >>>Likewise, if Spike is worth keeping around, than attempting to kill >>>him was a morally wrong thing. Not a very wrong thing, somewhat >>>akin to taking a gun everyone needs and breaking it. But, of >>>course, you can decide the risk of keeping the gun around is too >>>great. >>> >>>And of course, Xander had the right to change his mind at any time, >>>and reevaluate the risk of Spike. >>> >>>Except he didn't do that. >> >>I never claimed Xander put any thought (at the time) into killing >>Spike, I claimed the opposite in fact. I maintain that it's >>irrevelant though. I also remind you that Buffy was the only one who >>made the decision to keep Spike, the rest deferred to her, not to his >>potential value. > > BUffy had made the decision? What? Since when? She was the leader of the group, was she not? It was Buffy who first said he was the only one besides her who could protect Dawn from Glory (S5.20). The rest of the gang seemed to reach consensus by S5.15 that they could do without him, while she changed her mind (and made it clear later in the episode when she went to him pretending to be BuffyBot). > And how on earth would they have deferred to Buffy while she was dead? Spike had the chip for most of S4, Buffy died at the rump end of S5. Her decision still stood, and the Scoobies planned on bringing her back. Besides, they seemed to find a use for Spike over that summer. >>>And if everyone lied to everyone else? >> >>Point of interest, all the main characters lied to each other at >>least once. I guess, then, they're all just as bad as Angelus and the >>Master and Glory. We are talking about people here, not paragons of >>morality. > > Yeah, but that's not the point. > > You can argue the morality all you want, but in this show, most > villians and good guys don't betray each other. Either direction. What the show maintains as its operating procedures for the sake of story or characters, and what's moral or ethical, are not necessarily the same. > This has actually saved the world a few times. > > Spike's done it *twice*. When he was evil. The first time saved the > world, and the second time when he told Buffy where to find the > kidnapped Xander and Willow, which may have saved Cordelia. He lied to them about Adam and tried lying about Dru's return. I don't think it's as clear cut as you suggest. >>We're talking about breaking an implied promise here (the escape from >>the base) and not a lie per se (at least I don't recall anyone saying >>"I'll never break this eternal deal between the Scoobies and Mr. The >>Bloody"). Besides, if you lied/break your promise and kill the guy >>before any of the other bad guys find out... > > The door breaks down and a demon comes inside. Spike comes in and > breaks the demon's neck. The demon falls to the floor. > Spike: 'Nasty sort of fellow. Lucky for you blighters I was here, eh?' > Giles: 'Yes, thank you. Although your heroism has been slightly muted > by the fact that you were helping Adam to start a war that would kill > us all.' > Xander: 'You probably just saved us so we wouldn't stake you right > here.' > Spike: 'Did it work?' > Spike get staked through the heart by Buffy, who's revealed to be > standing behind him in the open door. He dusts. > Buffy: 'No.' > That's how it works in my version of events. ;) In reality: As it should have been! [snip dialogue] > And then we don't any of them until the next episode, and we don't even > see Spike until next season. So we don't know exactly what happened. > It's entirely possible Spike split during the fight, or got held back > and was left for dead, or they tried to kill him and he ran, or > whatever. I did say "implied". > But killing Spike outside the Initiative isn't the most horrible thing > in the world. However, intentionally lying to him wouldn't have been > the best thing on their part. I wouldn't hold it against them if they lied outright and made a half-dozen promises they had no intention of keeping. They weren't dealing with a person, they were dealing with a demon that had just confessed to working with Adam, abandoning him, and had tried ingratiating himself to them with a token demon-kill after a season of "I hate the lot of you". >>>Of course it would have been alright for Spike to kill Buffy and the >>>gang. After all, they were about to kill him, right? Hell, that's >>>just plain self-defense. >> >>I hope you aren't making some sort of appeal to emotion here. >> >>'No! It would be wrong of him to try killing them because I loooooove >>Willow! You're horrible! Etc.' </nimue> :) > > No, actually, I was being serious, and I've actually argued it's okay > for Spike to kill Slayer. The rational for killing vampires is (Another unfinished sentence, there.) I don't have a problem with an unsouled vampire killing someone in self-defence. That's not the part that makes them "bad", it's the preying on people who can't defend themselves that makes them "monsters". >>>>>You need to keep bargains you made, period. The courts don't >>>>>promise immunity to criminals, have them testify, and then >>>>>remove it and convict them. If you don't want to do that, >>>>>*don't make deals with bad people*. It's very easy. >>>> >>>>If courts negated bargains they'd soon find very few criminals >>>>would testify for them. >>> >>>Which is rather my point. Have you not been watching the show? >> >>I must have missed all the parts where, because of her reputation for >>killing demons, Clem refused to watch Dawn, and Willy took the >>beatings and kept his lips sealed, and countless vampire minions >>didn't crack under her use of threats and torture. > > She had a reputation for not killing harmless demons, which is *why* > Clem was willing to help. Other than Clem and the "good" demons (Whistler, Doyle, that type), what harmless demons did she have a reputation for not killing? She regularly beat up a human (Willy) who did no harm but happened to have information and a Caritas-like bar. >>>>>could kill him anyway. And *that's* where the chip comes in. >>>>>They could afford to trust him with the chip. >>>> >>>>No they couldn't. Adam. Beating/attempted rape of Buffy. FE >>>>Sleeper agent. Everyone and everything he hurt or killed or >>>>destroyed or turned from the moment Buffy decided to spare him is >>>>partly their fault. >>> >>>Beating of Buffy? When exactly did this happen? >> >>Spike discovers his chip doesn't count Buffy, so "you came back >>wrong" and they start slugging it out. > > Those weren't beatings, those were self defense. The only reason Spike > even found out he could hurt Buffy is that he hit her *back*. In the scene when he discovers the chip doesn't count her, yes, but the beatings I am refering to take place after that. S6.9 Smashed SPIKE: I'm just saying things might be a little different. You oughta be careful. BUFFY: Enough. (she starts to go, he blocks her) Get out of my way. SPIKE: Or what? (she shrugs, punches him) Oh, the pain! The pain! (grimly) Is gone. Guess what I just found out. Looks like I'm not as toothless as you thought, sweetheart. BUFFY: (alarmed) How? SPIKE: Don't you get it? Don't you see? (sneering) You came back wrong. (she punches him a few times, he responds in kind) BUFFY: It's a trick. You did something to the chip, it's a trick. SPIKE: It's no trick. It's not me, it's you. Just you, in fact, that's the funny part. (punches her in the face) 'Cause you're the one that's changed. (punches again) That's why this doesn't hurt me. (grins) Came back a little less human than you were. BUFFY: You're wrong. (sends him flying) SPIKE: Then how come you're so spooked, luv? And why can I - (punches her) do that? >>>>No it's ultimately irrelevant. A vampire dusted, one less in the >>>>world. You don't have to like how it was done, but once it's done >>>>it's done. >>> >>>And that's exactly what I was saying...I don't like how it was done. >> >>But you call it an amoral action anyway. If you were one of the >>Scoobies would you hate Xander for doing it out of rage and jealousy? >>Would you mourn Spike? I wouldn't. > > I wouldn't hate him, I'd just worry he was going to do other acts of > violence out of jealousy. He probably wouldn't *kill* a person, but who > knows exactly where he'd stop? That's specious, but understandable. -- DJensen

2004-03-01 03:54:19+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


DJensen wrote: > David Cheatham wrote: > > > Now you. Do you think torturing vampires for fun is wrong or not? > > Is it wrong to torture a demon (not a person, not an animal)? I don't > know, but I'm inclined to say it's not. Could it be bad for the > torturer's state of mind? Probably, but does that make it wrong? If an action makes you more likely to treat a human poorly, can we not say it's wrong? If by torturing vampires you come to think torture is normal behavior and you want to do it more, I think torturing vampires can be classified as wrong. And whether or not it's morally wrong, it still indicates something seriously messed up with that person. Like I said, humans are supposed to have empathy, it's what seperates us *from* vampires. If you can torture someone from fun when they are asking you not to, it doesn't matter if it's morally allowable to do it because they aren't humans, you're still completely screwed up and I'm not going to associate with you. Which really is my entire point about Xander. The point isn't that Xander tried to do something wrong, it's that he turned violent out of jealousy. Whether it was against a human, a vampire, or a table is really besides the point. And he didn't even heat of the moment as an excuse...he had to get to the Magic Box from Buffy's house! > Was > it wrong for the COW to keep that vampire in a box and feed him pills? Well, that wasn't 'for fun', was it? That at least had a purpose, however goofy. Of course, the morality issues with keeping the vampire in the box is rather overshadowed by the issues morality with drugging the Slayer and sticking her in a house with it! -- My hostname is only the last two parts.

2004-03-01 04:54:25+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


DJensen wrote: > David Cheatham wrote: > > DJensen wrote: > > > David Cheatham wrote: > > > > Kant claimed that if we do our duty for any reason other than > > > > because it is our duty is not a morally good action. (Don't > > > > confuse 'not morally good' with 'morally bad'.) I.e., donating > > > > a million dollars to a charity simply to get a tax writeoff is > > > > a morally neutral action, not morally good. (Of course, if you > > > > pick the most worthy charity, the choice of charity can be a > > > > morally good action while the donation wasn't.) > > > > > > Whatever your reason for giving a million dollars to a children's > > > hospital or a homeless shelter network, it is morally superior to > > > not giving the money (regardless of the reason). > > > > It is morally better to give the money to, say, a real charity, > > instead of some scam charity that takes 95% off the top. And it's > > morally good to give it to charity instead of some other > > hypotetical, identical way of getting a tax write off. > > Agreed. > > > > Why? Because that million dollars is just as needed and will be > > > put to use just as well as if you donated it to spite your > > > enemies, or because you genuinely felt it was right, or because > > > you wanted credit for it, or to screw your children out of > > > inheriting it. > > > > There's where we differ. Morally good acts are only morally good if > > they were done to better the world. (Let's not let this dissolve > > into an argument of what 'better the world' mean, we know that is > > debateable.) > > > > If you hold an elevator door because you suddenly can't remember if > > you're already on the right floor, and someone gets on, you didn't > > do anything to better the world. You did better the world with your > > actions, but your actions were not done to better the world, that > > was just a random side effect. > > > > And hence me, and Kant, both agree that your act wasn't morally > > good, but morally neutral. > > Good intentions are fine and dandy, but I'm not about to subtract > points on the scoreboard in the sky because your (good-)act and its > good-consequences didn't come from good-intent. > > If said hypothetical charity found out that Mr. Moneybags only gave > them money for the tax write-off, should they return the money? If > the intent is crucial, shouldn't they? I don't see why that follows at all. It's not the charity's job to go around judging people, it's to take the money they are given and put that to a good use. To rewind to my example, if I'm trying to catch the elevator you're holding because you can't remember if you're already on the right floor, should I stand there and not get on, because you're not trying to help me, you're just trying to save yourself from going to the wrong floor? > > > > Xander killing in season two would have been a morally good > > > > action, as Spike was clearly a dangerous vampire. Xander > > > > killing Spike after he sees him sleeping with Anya would have > > > > been a morally neutral action at best, because he was't doing > > > > his duty by killing dangerous vampire, he was acting out of > > > > emotion, and, coincidentally, killing a dangerous vampire. > > > > > > In other words in your opinion it wouldn't be wrong for Xander to > > > have killed Spike then, it would have been an amoral action > > > (because of the motivation) *at worst*. Why are we disagreeing > > > now? As far as I can see, an amoral reason and an irrelevant > > > reason aren't so different. > > > > No, I said it would be one *at best*, not at worst. > > Same difference as far as I'm concerned. +1, 0, -1; moral, amoral, > immoral. No, I meant, at best it would be amoral, at worst it would have been immoral. > > > > > So if I walk in on you and my ex, I can demand my money back > > > > > right there and then. Being insane with jealousy, again, > > > > > doesn't change the ownership of the money. Asking for it > > > > > while you're wrapped in a bedsheet and she's holding a pillow > > > > > over her breasts, again, doesn't change the ownership of the > > > > > money. > [snip] > > Anyway: Correct. However, it does you as rather petty. > > > > You can do completely legal acts, and even acts that supposedly are > > moral, out of other motives. > > > > If I let a escaped murderer hide out in my attic, because he swears > > he's innocent, until I notice he's made a long distance call and > > can't currently pay for it, so I turn him in, I don't suddenly > > become some sort of moral paradigm. > > > > Either I think he's innocent (and I think it's wrong to turn in > > innocent people), and thus turning him in was wrong, or I think he's > > guilty (or it's okay to turn in innocent people who been convicted > > to let the justice system sort it out), and thus not turning him in > > was wrong. > > This scenario is only comparable if you went out of your mind with > rage at seeing the long-distance bill. Xander's "betrayal" or "broken > promise" or "reneging on the deal" (whatever you want to call it, > since you seem to see it that way) was not calculated. Except that he travelled to the Magic Box and met them outside when they finished. > > But, regardless of the right and wrong, it shows something else > > about me...that I'm petty and not to be trusted. > > Neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion. Well, you can think that. > > Killing Spike had very little 'wrong' attached to it. It's even > > possible to argue that it had no wrong at all. But that doesn't mean > > that Xander *didn't* go into a jealous rage with an axe against > > someone his ex had slept with, just that he didn't he didn't target > > a human with the axe. > > And as I've said, that's the difference. Believe me if it had been a > human at the other end of the axe I wouldn't be shrugging this off or > excusing it. As opposed to a co-worker? > > > > However, if Spike is assessed as not keeping around, it is his > > > > duty to kill him, and he had plenty of chances. (I mean, Spike > > > > was basically helpless.) Failing to do so makes him amazingly > > > > immoral. > > > > > > Which I said elsewhere in this thread and again in that post -- > > > Spike should have be staked long ago and failing to was immoral > > > and made them all culpable for everything he did between then and > > > getting a soul. > > > > Sure, I'll go with that. > > > > However, that doesn't work retroactively. Just because he should > > have been killed years ago doesn't mean it's okay to kill him now. > > (Note I'm not saying it's not okay to kill him now, but that it's > > not okay *for that reason*.) > > If he should have been staked long ago and his threat index was > constant, it's just a matter of timing. His threat index wasn't constant. At that point he'd been working with the gang over a year, and had risked his life a few times for them. > > > > Likewise, if Spike is worth keeping around, than attempting to > > > > kill him was a morally wrong thing. Not a very wrong thing, > > > > somewhat akin to taking a gun everyone needs and breaking it. > > > > But, of course, you can decide the risk of keeping the gun > > > > around is too great. > > > > > > > > And of course, Xander had the right to change his mind at any > > > > time, and reevaluate the risk of Spike. > > > > > > > > Except he didn't do that. > > > > > > I never claimed Xander put any thought (at the time) into killing > > > Spike, I claimed the opposite in fact. I maintain that it's > > > irrevelant though. I also remind you that Buffy was the only one > > > who made the decision to keep Spike, the rest deferred to her, > > > not to his potential value. > > > > BUffy had made the decision? What? Since when? > > She was the leader of the group, was she not? It was Buffy who first > said he was the only one besides her who could protect Dawn from > Glory (S5.20). The rest of the gang seemed to reach consensus by > S5.15 that they could do without him, while she changed her mind (and > made it clear later in the episode when she went to him pretending to > be BuffyBot). Yes, which was a year before when we're talking about. > > And how on earth would they have deferred to Buffy while she was > > dead? > > Spike had the chip for most of S4, Buffy died at the rump end of S5. > Her decision still stood, and the Scoobies planned on bringing her > back. Besides, they seemed to find a use for Spike over that summer. That was my point. If it was just Buffy, then they would have killed Spike. But it wasn't. By then it was pretty much the entire gang that thought Spike useful. > > > > And if everyone lied to everyone else? > > > > > > Point of interest, all the main characters lied to each other at > > > least once. I guess, then, they're all just as bad as Angelus and > > > the Master and Glory. We are talking about people here, not > > > paragons of morality. > > > > Yeah, but that's not the point. > > > > You can argue the morality all you want, but in this show, most > > villians and good guys don't betray each other. Either direction. > > What the show maintains as its operating procedures for the sake of > story or characters, and what's moral or ethical, are not necessarily > the same. Obviously. > > This has actually saved the world a few times. > > > > Spike's done it twice. When he was evil. The first time saved the > > world, and the second time when he told Buffy where to find the > > kidnapped Xander and Willow, which may have saved Cordelia. > > He lied to them about Adam and tried lying about Dru's return. I > don't think it's as clear cut as you suggest. Spike didn't team up with them against Adam in the first place. But, anyway, the point is that not lying to the villians so they can trust you has saved the world. The villians have lied once or twice. > [snip dialogue] > > And then we don't any of them until the next episode, and we don't > > even see Spike until next season. So we don't know exactly what > > happened. It's entirely possible Spike split during the fight, or > > got held back and was left for dead, or they tried to kill him and > > he ran, or whatever. > > I did say "implied". > > > But killing Spike outside the Initiative isn't the most horrible > > thing in the world. However, intentionally lying to him wouldn't > > have been the best thing on their part. > > I wouldn't hold it against them if they lied outright and made a > half-dozen promises they had no intention of keeping. They weren't > dealing with a person, they were dealing with a demon that had just > confessed to working with Adam, abandoning him, and had tried > ingratiating himself to them with a token demon-kill after a season > of "I hate the lot of you". Yeah. But we really don't know what happened. Maybe Spike did some really fast talking. > > > > Of course it would have been alright for Spike to kill Buffy > > > > and the gang. After all, they were about to kill him, right? > > > > Hell, that's just plain self-defense. > > > > > > I hope you aren't making some sort of appeal to emotion here. > > > > > > 'No! It would be wrong of him to try killing them because I > > > loooooove > >>Willow! You're horrible! Etc.' </nimue> :) > > > > No, actually, I was being serious, and I've actually argued it's > > okay for Spike to kill Slayer. The rational for killing vampires is > > (Another unfinished sentence, there.) > > I don't have a problem with an unsouled vampire killing someone in > self-defence. That's not the part that makes them "bad", it's the > preying on people who can't defend themselves that makes them > "monsters". I honestly don't know what's going on, I'm begining to think it's a client problem. > > > > > > You need to keep bargains you made, period. The courts don't > > > > > > promise immunity to criminals, have them testify, and then > > > > > > remove it and convict them. If you don't want to do that, > > > > > > *don't make deals with bad people*. It's very easy. > > > > > > > > > > If courts negated bargains they'd soon find very few criminals > > > > > would testify for them. > > > > > > > > Which is rather my point. Have you not been watching the show? > > > > > > I must have missed all the parts where, because of her reputation > > > for killing demons, Clem refused to watch Dawn, and Willy took the > > > beatings and kept his lips sealed, and countless vampire minions > > > didn't crack under her use of threats and torture. > > > > She had a reputation for not killing harmless demons, which is why > > Clem was willing to help. > > Other than Clem and the "good" demons (Whistler, Doyle, that type), > what harmless demons did she have a reputation for not killing? She > regularly beat up a human (Willy) who did no harm but happened to > have information and a Caritas-like bar. She had a reputation for not killing Willy. (Granted, he's a human, so she really wouldn't kill him, but I doubt the demons recognize that distinction.) And Willy wasn't really running a 'Caritas-like bar'...he was also dealing in information and actively involved in some plans. She just didn't pay him for the information. ;) My point was that demons felt they could come to her without getting killed. A demon did so in season three, with books about the ascension. (Sadly, *Faith* killed him, but the point is valid.) Spike did in season two, and again in four. > > > > > > could kill him anyway. And *that's* where the chip comes in. > > > > > > They could afford to trust him with the chip. > > > > > > > > > > No they couldn't. Adam. Beating/attempted rape of Buffy. FE > > > > > Sleeper agent. Everyone and everything he hurt or killed or > > > > > destroyed or turned from the moment Buffy decided to spare > > > > > him is partly their fault. > > > > > > > > Beating of Buffy? When exactly did this happen? > > > > > > Spike discovers his chip doesn't count Buffy, so "you came back > > > wrong" and they start slugging it out. > > > > Those weren't beatings, those were self defense. The only reason > > Spike even found out he could hurt Buffy is that he hit her back. > > In the scene when he discovers the chip doesn't count her, yes, but > the beatings I am refering to take place after that. > > S6.9 Smashed > SPIKE: I'm just saying things might be a little different. You oughta > be careful. BUFFY: Enough. (she starts to go, he blocks her) Get out > of my way. SPIKE: Or what? (she shrugs, punches him) Oh, the pain! > The pain! (grimly) Is gone. Guess what I just found out. Looks like > I'm not as toothless as you thought, sweetheart. BUFFY: (alarmed) > How? SPIKE: Don't you get it? Don't you see? (sneering) You came > back wrong. (she punches him a few times, he responds in kind) > BUFFY: It's a trick. You did something to the chip, it's a trick. > SPIKE: It's no trick. It's not me, it's you. Just you, in fact, > that's the funny part. (punches her in the face) 'Cause you're the > one that's changed. (punches again) That's why this doesn't hurt me. > (grins) Came back a little less human than you were. BUFFY: You're > wrong. (sends him flying) SPIKE: Then how come you're so spooked, > luv? And why can I - (punches her) do that? Spike did not beat up Buffy. Buffy constantly beat on Spike until he discovered he could punch back, and then he did, after which point they constantly beat up each other. -- My hostname is only the last two parts.

2004-03-01 11:23:09-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


David Cheatham wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>David Cheatham wrote: >>>Now you. Do you think torturing vampires for fun is wrong or not? >> >>Is it wrong to torture a demon (not a person, not an animal)? I don't >>know, but I'm inclined to say it's not. Could it be bad for the >>torturer's state of mind? Probably, but does that make it wrong? > > If an action makes you more likely to treat a human poorly, can we not > say it's wrong? If by torturing vampires you come to think torture is > normal behavior and you want to do it more, I think torturing vampires > can be classified as wrong. That second one is a fairly big 'if'. > And whether or not it's morally wrong, it still indicates something > seriously messed up with that person. Like I said, humans are supposed > to have empathy, it's what seperates us *from* vampires. If you can > torture someone from fun when they are asking you not to, it doesn't > matter if it's morally allowable to do it because they aren't humans, > you're still completely screwed up and I'm not going to associate with > you. At Yale in the 1960s Stanley Milgram conducted a series of studies that involved subjects shocking (unseen, virtual) people when a wrong answer was given in a series of questions, with each subsequent 'wrong' answer met with a stronger jolt from 15 volts to 450 volts. 65% of test subjects used the maximum voltage on the real (to them) person on the other side of the wall, and not a single subject stopped before reaching the 300 volt setting, simply because they were instructed to. "Empathy" goes away without much effort. > Which really is my entire point about Xander. The point isn't that > Xander tried to do something wrong, it's that he turned violent out of > jealousy. Whether it was against a human, a vampire, or a table is > really besides the point. It's another kettle of fish, as far as I'm concerned, for the purposes of 'would it have been wrong for Spike to die that way?' > And he didn't even heat of the moment as an > excuse...he had to get to the Magic Box from Buffy's house! Sunnydale has plastic geography, it takes seconds to cross town when the plot demands it. >>Was >>it wrong for the COW to keep that vampire in a box and feed him pills? > > Well, that wasn't 'for fun', was it? That at least had a purpose, > however goofy. > > Of course, the morality issues with keeping the vampire in the box is > rather overshadowed by the issues morality with drugging the Slayer and > sticking her in a house with it! So much for good intentions eh? -- DJensen

2004-03-01 11:47:31-05:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (DJensen <me@no-spam-thanks.net>)


David Cheatham wrote: > DJensen wrote: >>David Cheatham wrote: >>>And hence me, and Kant, both agree that your act wasn't morally >>>good, but morally neutral. >> >>Good intentions are fine and dandy, but I'm not about to subtract >>points on the scoreboard in the sky because your (good-)act and its >>good-consequences didn't come from good-intent. >> >>If said hypothetical charity found out that Mr. Moneybags only gave >>them money for the tax write-off, should they return the money? If >>the intent is crucial, shouldn't they? > > I don't see why that follows at all. It's not the charity's job to go > around judging people, it's to take the money they are given and put > that to a good use. > > To rewind to my example, if I'm trying to catch the elevator you're > holding because you can't remember if you're already on the right > floor, should I stand there and not get on, because you're not trying > to help me, you're just trying to save yourself from going to the wrong > floor? If intent determines an action is neutral, but the results are good, I think for the sake of pragmatism it was a good act, a good unintended act. "Oops, my mistake" meant you arrived on time and got that big client or that promotion, are you going to say you'd prefer the doors had be held for some other reason? Would your promotion have been larger or the client more important if they had? Of course not. >>>>>Xander killing in season two would have been a morally good >>>>>action, as Spike was clearly a dangerous vampire. Xander >>>>>killing Spike after he sees him sleeping with Anya would have >>>>>been a morally neutral action at best, because he was't doing >>>>>his duty by killing dangerous vampire, he was acting out of >>>>>emotion, and, coincidentally, killing a dangerous vampire. >>>> >>>>In other words in your opinion it wouldn't be wrong for Xander to >>>>have killed Spike then, it would have been an amoral action >>>>(because of the motivation) *at worst*. Why are we disagreeing >>>>now? As far as I can see, an amoral reason and an irrelevant >>>>reason aren't so different. >>> >>>No, I said it would be one *at best*, not at worst. >> >>Same difference as far as I'm concerned. +1, 0, -1; moral, amoral, >>immoral. > > No, I meant, at best it would be amoral, at worst it would have been > immoral. Which is it then? >>>Either I think he's innocent (and I think it's wrong to turn in >>>innocent people), and thus turning him in was wrong, or I think he's >>>guilty (or it's okay to turn in innocent people who been convicted >>>to let the justice system sort it out), and thus not turning him in >>>was wrong. >> >>This scenario is only comparable if you went out of your mind with >>rage at seeing the long-distance bill. Xander's "betrayal" or "broken >>promise" or "reneging on the deal" (whatever you want to call it, >>since you seem to see it that way) was not calculated. > > Except that he travelled to the Magic Box and met them outside when > they finished. With no sign that his emotional state had changed, and no indication that he was planning to chop Spike up before entering that state. >>>Killing Spike had very little 'wrong' attached to it. It's even >>>possible to argue that it had no wrong at all. But that doesn't mean >>>that Xander *didn't* go into a jealous rage with an axe against >>>someone his ex had slept with, just that he didn't he didn't target >>>a human with the axe. >> >>And as I've said, that's the difference. Believe me if it had been a >>human at the other end of the axe I wouldn't be shrugging this off or >>excusing it. > > As opposed to a co-worker? Being a co-worker doesn't make one human. >>>However, that doesn't work retroactively. Just because he should >>>have been killed years ago doesn't mean it's okay to kill him now. >>>(Note I'm not saying it's not okay to kill him now, but that it's >>>not okay *for that reason*.) >> >>If he should have been staked long ago and his threat index was >>constant, it's just a matter of timing. > > His threat index wasn't constant. At that point he'd been working with > the gang over a year, and had risked his life a few times for them. He was still quite capable (as he ever was with the chip) of giving into his 'nature' as a vampire. >>>BUffy had made the decision? What? Since when? >> >>She was the leader of the group, was she not? It was Buffy who first >>said he was the only one besides her who could protect Dawn from >>Glory (S5.20). The rest of the gang seemed to reach consensus by >>S5.15 that they could do without him, while she changed her mind (and >>made it clear later in the episode when she went to him pretending to >>be BuffyBot). > > Yes, which was a year before when we're talking about. The passage of a year doesn't undo her status or her decisions. >>>And how on earth would they have deferred to Buffy while she was >>>dead? >> >>Spike had the chip for most of S4, Buffy died at the rump end of S5. >>Her decision still stood, and the Scoobies planned on bringing her >>back. Besides, they seemed to find a use for Spike over that summer. > > That was my point. > > If it was just Buffy, then they would have killed Spike. But it wasn't. > > By then it was pretty much the entire gang that thought Spike useful. It was Buffy who said he was useful for protecting Dawn, which is what he did over that summer. And it's still not an eternally binding contract and doesn't mitigate his soulless vampirism. >>>No, actually, I was being serious, and I've actually argued it's >>>okay for Spike to kill Slayer. The rational for killing vampires is >> >>(Another unfinished sentence, there.) >> >>I don't have a problem with an unsouled vampire killing someone in >>self-defence. That's not the part that makes them "bad", it's the >>preying on people who can't defend themselves that makes them >>"monsters". > > I honestly don't know what's going on, I'm begining to think it's a > client problem. I've been using Mozilla's Thundbird for three weeks now, haven't had a problem (and I think it's still pre-release or beta versioned). Check it out if you decide to switch. >>>She had a reputation for not killing harmless demons, which is why >>>Clem was willing to help. >> >>Other than Clem and the "good" demons (Whistler, Doyle, that type), >>what harmless demons did she have a reputation for not killing? She >>regularly beat up a human (Willy) who did no harm but happened to >>have information and a Caritas-like bar. > > She had a reputation for not killing Willy. (Granted, he's a human, so > she really wouldn't kill him, but I doubt the demons recognize that > distinction.) And Willy wasn't really running a 'Caritas-like bar'...he > was also dealing in information and actively involved in some plans. > She just didn't pay him for the information. ;) > > My point was that demons felt they could come to her without getting > killed. A demon did so in season three, with books about the ascension. > (Sadly, *Faith* killed him, but the point is valid.) Spike did in > season two, and again in four. We don't really know the nature of the book demon, for all we know he was a librarian demon with a natural talent for sorting books, and nothing more. Spike isn't much of an endorsement though, at best they were evenly matched in a fight. >>S6.9 Smashed >>SPIKE: I'm just saying things might be a little different. You oughta >>be careful. BUFFY: Enough. (she starts to go, he blocks her) Get out >>of my way. SPIKE: Or what? (she shrugs, punches him) Oh, the pain! >>The pain! (grimly) Is gone. Guess what I just found out. Looks like >>I'm not as toothless as you thought, sweetheart. BUFFY: (alarmed) >>How? SPIKE: Don't you get it? Don't you see? (sneering) You came >>back wrong. (she punches him a few times, he responds in kind) >>BUFFY: It's a trick. You did something to the chip, it's a trick. >>SPIKE: It's no trick. It's not me, it's you. Just you, in fact, >>that's the funny part. (punches her in the face) 'Cause you're the >>one that's changed. (punches again) That's why this doesn't hurt me. >>(grins) Came back a little less human than you were. BUFFY: You're >>wrong. (sends him flying) SPIKE: Then how come you're so spooked, >>luv? And why can I - (punches her) do that? > > Spike did not beat up Buffy. Buffy constantly beat on Spike until he > discovered he could punch back, and then he did, after which point they > constantly beat up each other. He did not hesitate to punch her back, or keep punching, though. Hardly a sign of enduring trustworthiness -- imagine what he would have been doing if the chip had failed entirely. -- DJensen

2004-03-05 00:02:01+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


DJensen wrote: > David Cheatham wrote: > > DJensen wrote: > > > David Cheatham wrote: > > > > And hence me, and Kant, both agree that your act wasn't morally > > > > good, but morally neutral. > > > > > > Good intentions are fine and dandy, but I'm not about to subtract > > > points on the scoreboard in the sky because your (good-)act and > > > its good-consequences didn't come from good-intent. > > > > > > If said hypothetical charity found out that Mr. Moneybags only > > > gave them money for the tax write-off, should they return the > > > money? If the intent is crucial, shouldn't they? > > > > I don't see why that follows at all. It's not the charity's job to > > go around judging people, it's to take the money they are given and > > put that to a good use. > > > > To rewind to my example, if I'm trying to catch the elevator you're > > holding because you can't remember if you're already on the right > > floor, should I stand there and not get on, because you're not > > trying to help me, you're just trying to save yourself from going > > to the wrong floor? > > If intent determines an action is neutral, but the results are good, > I think for the sake of pragmatism it was a good act, a good > unintended act. "Oops, my mistake" meant you arrived on time and got > that big client or that promotion, are you going to say you'd prefer > the doors had be held for some other reason? Would your promotion > have been larger or the client more important if they had? Of course > not. The point isn't the effect. Good things happening completely by random chance are still good things. If some hiccup happened in the elevator that caused it to keep the doors open twenty seconds longer than normal. It's just that the person doing them doesn't get any credit for them. > > > > > > Xander killing in season two would have been a morally good > > > > > > action, as Spike was clearly a dangerous vampire. Xander > > > > > > killing Spike after he sees him sleeping with Anya would > > > > > > have been a morally neutral action at best, because he > > > > > > was't doing his duty by killing dangerous vampire, he was > > > > > > acting out of emotion, and, coincidentally, killing a > > > > > > dangerous vampire. > > > > > > > > > > In other words in your opinion it wouldn't be wrong for > > > > > Xander to have killed Spike then, it would have been an > > > > > amoral action (because of the motivation) *at worst*. Why are > > > > > we disagreeing now? As far as I can see, an amoral reason and > > > > > an irrelevant reason aren't so different. > > > > > > > > No, I said it would be one *at best*, not at worst. > > > > > > Same difference as far as I'm concerned. +1, 0, -1; moral, amoral, > > > immoral. > > > > No, I meant, at best it would be amoral, at worst it would have been > > immoral. > > Which is it then? I don't think it was immoral per se. It would remove a useful tool from the side of good, but Spike was just barely useful enough to keep alive anyway. However, the fact it wasn't immoral doesn't mean you can't make judgements about Xander because of it. If he went into a rage and beat up his own furniture every time Anya went out on a date with eomeone else, I'd judge him too, and destroying your own furniture isn't immoral. > > > > Either I think he's innocent (and I think it's wrong to turn in > > > > innocent people), and thus turning him in was wrong, or I think > > > > he's guilty (or it's okay to turn in innocent people who been > > > > convicted to let the justice system sort it out), and thus not > > > > turning him in was wrong. > > > > > > This scenario is only comparable if you went out of your mind with > > > rage at seeing the long-distance bill. Xander's "betrayal" or > > > "broken promise" or "reneging on the deal" (whatever you want to > > > call it, since you seem to see it that way) was not calculated. > > > > Except that he travelled to the Magic Box and met them outside when > > they finished. > > With no sign that his emotional state had changed, and no indication > that he was planning to chop Spike up before entering that state. Correct. He saw something he didn't like, grabbed an axe, and ran out of the house and across town. That doesn't count as heat of the moment, BTW, at least not legally. > > > > Killing Spike had very little 'wrong' attached to it. It's even > > > > possible to argue that it had no wrong at all. But that doesn't > > > > mean that Xander *didn't* go into a jealous rage with an axe > > > > against someone his ex had slept with, just that he didn't he > > > > didn't target a human with the axe. > > > > > > And as I've said, that's the difference. Believe me if it had > > > been a human at the other end of the axe I wouldn't be shrugging > > > this off or excusing it. > > > > As opposed to a co-worker? > > Being a co-worker doesn't make one human. And not being a human doesn't mean they're not a friend. Xander had worked side by side with him all summer. > > > > However, that doesn't work retroactively. Just because he should > > > > have been killed years ago doesn't mean it's okay to kill him > > > > now. (Note I'm not saying it's not okay to kill him now, but > > > > that it's not okay *for that reason*.) > > > > > > If he should have been staked long ago and his threat index was > > > constant, it's just a matter of timing. > > > > His threat index wasn't constant. At that point he'd been working > > with the gang over a year, and had risked his life a few times for > > them. > > He was still quite capable (as he ever was with the chip) of giving > into his 'nature' as a vampire. Yes. That's not really the point. > > > > BUffy had made the decision? What? Since when? > > > > > > She was the leader of the group, was she not? It was Buffy who > > > first said he was the only one besides her who could protect Dawn > > > from Glory (S5.20). The rest of the gang seemed to reach > > > consensus by S5.15 that they could do without him, while she > > > changed her mind (and made it clear later in the episode when she > > > went to him pretending to be BuffyBot). > > > > Yes, which was a year before when we're talking about. > > The passage of a year doesn't undo her status or her decisions. I was pointing that it certainly wasn't Buffy's decision to keep Spike alive *while she was dead*. That would be a pretty neat trick. > > > > And how on earth would they have deferred to Buffy while she was > > > > dead? > > > > > > Spike had the chip for most of S4, Buffy died at the rump end of > > > S5. Her decision still stood, and the Scoobies planned on > > > bringing her back. Besides, they seemed to find a use for Spike > > > over that summer. > > > > That was my point. > > > > If it was just Buffy, then they would have killed Spike. But it > > wasn't. > > > > By then it was pretty much the entire gang that thought Spike > > useful. > > It was Buffy who said he was useful for protecting Dawn, which is > what he did over that summer. And it's still not an eternally binding > contract and doesn't mitigate his soulless vampirism. Well, of course not. > > > > No, actually, I was being serious, and I've actually argued it's > > > > okay for Spike to kill Slayer. The rational for killing > > > > vampires is > > > > > > (Another unfinished sentence, there.) > > > > > > I don't have a problem with an unsouled vampire killing someone in > > > self-defence. That's not the part that makes them "bad", it's the > > > preying on people who can't defend themselves that makes them > > > "monsters". > > > > I honestly don't know what's going on, I'm begining to think it's a > > client problem. > > I've been using Mozilla's Thundbird for three weeks now, haven't had > a problem (and I think it's still pre-release or beta versioned). > Check it out if you decide to switch. I hate mixed clients. I upgraded XanaNews, maybe that will fix it. > > > > She had a reputation for not killing harmless demons, which is > > > > why Clem was willing to help. > > > > > > Other than Clem and the "good" demons (Whistler, Doyle, that > > > type), what harmless demons did she have a reputation for not > > > killing? She regularly beat up a human (Willy) who did no harm > > > but happened to have information and a Caritas-like bar. > > > > She had a reputation for not killing Willy. (Granted, he's a human, > > so she really wouldn't kill him, but I doubt the demons recognize > > that distinction.) And Willy wasn't really running a 'Caritas-like > > bar'...he was also dealing in information and actively involved in > > some plans. She just didn't pay him for the information. ;) > > > > My point was that demons felt they could come to her without getting > > killed. A demon did so in season three, with books about the > > ascension. (Sadly, Faith killed him, but the point is valid.) > > Spike did in season two, and again in four. > > We don't really know the nature of the book demon, for all we know he > was a librarian demon with a natural talent for sorting books, and > nothing more. Spike isn't much of an endorsement though, at best they > were evenly matched in a fight. Yeah, I know, that was my point. A harmless demon felt it could go to Buffy to help her stop something that would have killed humans and demons, and that she wouldn't kill it just because it was a demon. > > > S6.9 Smashed > > > SPIKE: I'm just saying things might be a little different. You > > > oughta be careful. BUFFY: Enough. (she starts to go, he blocks > > > her) Get out of my way. SPIKE: Or what? (she shrugs, punches > > > him) Oh, the pain! The pain! (grimly) Is gone. Guess what I just > > > found out. Looks like I'm not as toothless as you thought, > > > sweetheart. BUFFY: (alarmed) How? SPIKE: Don't you get it? > > > Don't you see? (sneering) You came back wrong. (she punches him > > > a few times, he responds in kind) BUFFY: It's a trick. You did > > > something to the chip, it's a trick. SPIKE: It's no trick. It's > > > not me, it's you. Just you, in fact, that's the funny part. > > > (punches her in the face) 'Cause you're the one that's changed. > > > (punches again) That's why this doesn't hurt me. (grins) Came > > > back a little less human than you were. BUFFY: You're wrong. > > > (sends him flying) SPIKE: Then how come you're so spooked, luv? > > > And why can I - (punches her) do that? > > > > Spike did not beat up Buffy. Buffy constantly beat on Spike until he > > discovered he could punch back, and then he did, after which point > > they constantly beat up each other. > > He did not hesitate to punch her back, or keep punching, though. > Hardly a sign of enduring trustworthiness -- imagine what he would > have been doing if the chip had failed entirely. The chip *had* failed completely with regard to Buffy. -- My hostname is only the last two parts.

2004-03-05 00:17:03+00:00 - Re: New female lead (supposition, no spoiler) - (David Cheatham <david@tg.creeknet.com>)


DJensen wrote: > David Cheatham wrote: > > DJensen wrote: > > > David Cheatham wrote: > > > > Now you. Do you think torturing vampires for fun is wrong or > > > > not? > > > > > > Is it wrong to torture a demon (not a person, not an animal)? I > > > don't know, but I'm inclined to say it's not. Could it be bad for > > > the torturer's state of mind? Probably, but does that make it > > > wrong? > > > > If an action makes you more likely to treat a human poorly, can we > > not say it's wrong? If by torturing vampires you come to think > > torture is normal behavior and you want to do it more, I think > > torturing vampires can be classified as wrong. > > That second one is a fairly big 'if'. Not really. Seeing something makes it more acceptable to us. Doing something makes it even more acceptable. And, yes, vampires *aren't* humans, but they look like them and react to pain like them. Plus, why would you *want* to cause pain to something? It doesn't matter that it's not a person, demons can certainly cause pain. The mere *wish* to cause them pain is suspect. > > And whether or not it's morally wrong, it still indicates something > > seriously messed up with that person. Like I said, humans are > > supposed to have empathy, it's what seperates us from vampires. If > > you can torture someone from fun when they are asking you not to, > > it doesn't matter if it's morally allowable to do it because they > > aren't humans, you're still completely screwed up and I'm not going > > to associate with you. > > At Yale in the 1960s Stanley Milgram conducted a series of studies > that involved subjects shocking (unseen, virtual) people when a wrong > answer was given in a series of questions, with each subsequent > 'wrong' answer met with a stronger jolt from 15 volts to 450 volts. > 65% of test subjects used the maximum voltage on the real (to them) > person on the other side of the wall, and not a single subject > stopped before reaching the 300 volt setting, simply because they > were instructed to. "Empathy" goes away without much effort. On the show, empathy is the only thing that seperates us from vampires. Human beings can feel other's pain, and hence are redeemable. (They don't *have* to feel their pain, but they *can*.) Vampires simply cannot feel stranger's pain. Whether or not this is true in the real world, it's true in the Buffyverse. If it's not true, then we are the same as vampires. > > Which really is my entire point about Xander. The point isn't that > > Xander tried to do something wrong, it's that he turned violent out > > of jealousy. Whether it was against a human, a vampire, or a table > > is really besides the point. > > It's another kettle of fish, as far as I'm concerned, for the > purposes of 'would it have been wrong for Spike to die that way?' It wouldn't have been wrong for Spike to die that way. It would have been wrong for Xander to kill him that way. > > And he didn't even heat of the moment as an > > excuse...he had to get to the Magic Box from Buffy's house! > > Sunnydale has plastic geography, it takes seconds to cross town when > the plot demands it. No, Spike and Anya had finished by the time Xander got there. It definately took some time. > > > Was > > > it wrong for the COW to keep that vampire in a box and feed him > > > pills? > > > > Well, that wasn't 'for fun', was it? That at least had a purpose, > > however goofy. > > > > Of course, the morality issues with keeping the vampire in the box > > is rather overshadowed by the issues morality with drugging the > > Slayer and sticking her in a house with it! > > So much for good intentions eh? The Council of Watchers are directing traffic on the road to hell. -- My hostname is only the last two parts.