FLM films - My Webpage

2003-03-26 16:22:44-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030326152259.01169.00000243@mb-fh.aol.com... > So many issues involving warfare and torture seem to be ringing true right now. > > The issue of torture has come up in the USA... The USA supposedly doesn't allow > torture, but does engage in torture-like tactics and sends some suspected > terrorists to other countries to be tortured in order to extract information. > There is a debate as to whether this is hypocritical, whether it goes against > everything the USA stands for, or whether desperate times call for desperate > measures ergo it's justified. Even if it is justified, does it endanger the > USA's own prisoners of war if the USA doesn't follow the spirit (even if it > does follow the letter) of the Geneva Convention? > Actually, I was thinking about the Iraqi soldiers dressed as civilians and ambushing U.S. soldiers. Dirty tactics, certainly. (I love the way Donald Rumsfeld wrinkles his nose in disgust at that sort of thing. I'm going to miss that, and only that, once I've sent him on to another dimension.) But you can bet your sweet bippy that if Iraqi soldiers were storming the streets of my hometown I'd be engaged in every dirty tactic there is and then some. Desperate times do call for desperate measures. In fact, the British had many uncomplimentary things to say about the way we Americans engaged in battle during the Revolution. Citizens in glass houses...... > We had this issue come up on Angel a couple of weeks ago. Wesley tortured > someone for information vital to protecting vast numbers of the public from > Angelus. This goes farther than the debate in the US as she was not suspected > of being on "the other side", she was just a bystander. Was Wes right to > torture her, or was Faith right that he went too far? > I think Faith was right. Wesley had no business torturing a human like that. For one thing he had no good evidence that she actually even knew anything. He was torturing her on the off chance that she did. And the information she was able to provide wasn't anything that Faith and Wesley couldn't have uncovered on their own without resorting to torture. > The issue of "desperate measures in desperate times: comes up on BtVS too. Is > Giles-Like-Guy right to assassinate Spike if he perceives him as a threat to > the world (read "national security")? Giles crime in this instance is going behind Buffy's back. He's placed the burden of dealing with this situation squarely on her shoulders and he's told her time and again that he's taught her everything he can and she doesn't need him anymore. Then he goes about questioning her judgment in front of others, and criticizing the decisions she makes. Typical parent, but he's wrong to do so. Is Buffy right to protect a dangerous > Spike out of 1) love or 2) because he's necessary to the war...better to risk a > few people's lives now than six billion later, or 3) love and because he's > necessary to the world? Buffy should have destroyed Spike along time ago. The end of season four was reason enough in itself. Obviously, her feelings for him have blinded her logic. Maybe she's right (I believe she is) to think that deep down Spike is trustworthy but she doesn't have any true logical basis for that thinking. Still, dealing with Spike is Buffy's job, not Giles' and certainly not Woods. I think she was right to set them both straight on that accord. Is Buffy right to decide she would kill Dawn if she > had to, and does she mean it? If she does, can Shannon guest star in the ep > and help Buffy do the deed? > Just a little push into a portal, that's all I ask. It doesn't have to be death. ;) > Buffy says you can't fight evil by doing evil. Is she right? No. I'm a firm believer in the death penalty. Which inarguably is evil. Still, dead men don't rape and murder again, ever. Same goes for child molesters, who are incurable. Yet, they are released into our society again and again to continue stalking and molesting children. Many of these criminals graduate to kidnapping, rape and murder. Abortion, too, I believe is evil. But a necessary evil. Sometimes maybe a lesser evil, sometimes not. I don't think that government is in a position to decide these things for people, however. And just to cover all bases, I'm in favor of euthanasia, also. Not inherently evil, I believe, but unquestionably bordering on a slippery slope that could lead to evil of unimaginable proportions. Can you even say > that there are any steps that can be taken to fight evil that can be called > evil? If a method is used to fight evil can't it be argued that method is not > evil, no matter how unpleasant it is? Is it indeed evil, but necessary? Sometimes necessary, that doesn't mean it isn't wrong. Or is > there never an excuse to use evil means to fight and if so, what do we expect > to be the consequences of giving up evil means to an end? Of course, these > issues are debated every day right now re the USA bombing Iraq, the reason > given that it's necessary for national security. How many American and Iraqi > lives is the USA and her allies to sacrifice? 10? 100? 1,000? 100,000? Is > there a line and if so, where do you draw it? > I am unqualifying uncomfortable with 1 dead American. Still, I believe Hussein is a threat to the world and especially to the Iraqi people. The question in my mind is "Was war our only option here?" For the sakes of those who have been sacrificed already I hope history tells us that it was. > Does fighting evil necessitate evil means and if so, does that mean fighting > evil will probably make you hard, callous, amoral or evil yourself? Amoral, perhaps. Hard, certainly. Not necessarily callous, or evil, though. Certainly having the power to make and carry out evil decisions enhances an individuals capacity for evil. Recognizing that, and controlling it, is the key to *not* becoming evil. Buffy and Angel understand this. Faith does now as well, I believe. Willow, Spike, Wesley, etc....are still up for grabs. > > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > >

2003-03-26 16:22:44-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030326152259.01169.00000243@mb-fh.aol.com... > So many issues involving warfare and torture seem to be ringing true right now. > > The issue of torture has come up in the USA... The USA supposedly doesn't allow > torture, but does engage in torture-like tactics and sends some suspected > terrorists to other countries to be tortured in order to extract information. > There is a debate as to whether this is hypocritical, whether it goes against > everything the USA stands for, or whether desperate times call for desperate > measures ergo it's justified. Even if it is justified, does it endanger the > USA's own prisoners of war if the USA doesn't follow the spirit (even if it > does follow the letter) of the Geneva Convention? > Actually, I was thinking about the Iraqi soldiers dressed as civilians and ambushing U.S. soldiers. Dirty tactics, certainly. (I love the way Donald Rumsfeld wrinkles his nose in disgust at that sort of thing. I'm going to miss that, and only that, once I've sent him on to another dimension.) But you can bet your sweet bippy that if Iraqi soldiers were storming the streets of my hometown I'd be engaged in every dirty tactic there is and then some. Desperate times do call for desperate measures. In fact, the British had many uncomplimentary things to say about the way we Americans engaged in battle during the Revolution. Citizens in glass houses...... > We had this issue come up on Angel a couple of weeks ago. Wesley tortured > someone for information vital to protecting vast numbers of the public from > Angelus. This goes farther than the debate in the US as she was not suspected > of being on "the other side", she was just a bystander. Was Wes right to > torture her, or was Faith right that he went too far? > I think Faith was right. Wesley had no business torturing a human like that. For one thing he had no good evidence that she actually even knew anything. He was torturing her on the off chance that she did. And the information she was able to provide wasn't anything that Faith and Wesley couldn't have uncovered on their own without resorting to torture. > The issue of "desperate measures in desperate times: comes up on BtVS too. Is > Giles-Like-Guy right to assassinate Spike if he perceives him as a threat to > the world (read "national security")? Giles crime in this instance is going behind Buffy's back. He's placed the burden of dealing with this situation squarely on her shoulders and he's told her time and again that he's taught her everything he can and she doesn't need him anymore. Then he goes about questioning her judgment in front of others, and criticizing the decisions she makes. Typical parent, but he's wrong to do so. Is Buffy right to protect a dangerous > Spike out of 1) love or 2) because he's necessary to the war...better to risk a > few people's lives now than six billion later, or 3) love and because he's > necessary to the world? Buffy should have destroyed Spike along time ago. The end of season four was reason enough in itself. Obviously, her feelings for him have blinded her logic. Maybe she's right (I believe she is) to think that deep down Spike is trustworthy but she doesn't have any true logical basis for that thinking. Still, dealing with Spike is Buffy's job, not Giles' and certainly not Woods. I think she was right to set them both straight on that accord. Is Buffy right to decide she would kill Dawn if she > had to, and does she mean it? If she does, can Shannon guest star in the ep > and help Buffy do the deed? > Just a little push into a portal, that's all I ask. It doesn't have to be death. ;) > Buffy says you can't fight evil by doing evil. Is she right? No. I'm a firm believer in the death penalty. Which inarguably is evil. Still, dead men don't rape and murder again, ever. Same goes for child molesters, who are incurable. Yet, they are released into our society again and again to continue stalking and molesting children. Many of these criminals graduate to kidnapping, rape and murder. Abortion, too, I believe is evil. But a necessary evil. Sometimes maybe a lesser evil, sometimes not. I don't think that government is in a position to decide these things for people, however. And just to cover all bases, I'm in favor of euthanasia, also. Not inherently evil, I believe, but unquestionably bordering on a slippery slope that could lead to evil of unimaginable proportions. Can you even say > that there are any steps that can be taken to fight evil that can be called > evil? If a method is used to fight evil can't it be argued that method is not > evil, no matter how unpleasant it is? Is it indeed evil, but necessary? Sometimes necessary, that doesn't mean it isn't wrong. Or is > there never an excuse to use evil means to fight and if so, what do we expect > to be the consequences of giving up evil means to an end? Of course, these > issues are debated every day right now re the USA bombing Iraq, the reason > given that it's necessary for national security. How many American and Iraqi > lives is the USA and her allies to sacrifice? 10? 100? 1,000? 100,000? Is > there a line and if so, where do you draw it? > I am unqualifying uncomfortable with 1 dead American. Still, I believe Hussein is a threat to the world and especially to the Iraqi people. The question in my mind is "Was war our only option here?" For the sakes of those who have been sacrificed already I hope history tells us that it was. > Does fighting evil necessitate evil means and if so, does that mean fighting > evil will probably make you hard, callous, amoral or evil yourself? Amoral, perhaps. Hard, certainly. Not necessarily callous, or evil, though. Certainly having the power to make and carry out evil decisions enhances an individuals capacity for evil. Recognizing that, and controlling it, is the key to *not* becoming evil. Buffy and Angel understand this. Faith does now as well, I believe. Willow, Spike, Wesley, etc....are still up for grabs. > > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > >

2003-03-26 20:22:59+00:00 - Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


So many issues involving warfare and torture seem to be ringing true right now. The issue of torture has come up in the USA... The USA supposedly doesn't allow torture, but does engage in torture-like tactics and sends some suspected terrorists to other countries to be tortured in order to extract information. There is a debate as to whether this is hypocritical, whether it goes against everything the USA stands for, or whether desperate times call for desperate measures ergo it's justified. Even if it is justified, does it endanger the USA's own prisoners of war if the USA doesn't follow the spirit (even if it does follow the letter) of the Geneva Convention? We had this issue come up on Angel a couple of weeks ago. Wesley tortured someone for information vital to protecting vast numbers of the public from Angelus. This goes farther than the debate in the US as she was not suspected of being on "the other side", she was just a bystander. Was Wes right to torture her, or was Faith right that he went too far? The issue of "desperate measures in desperate times: comes up on BtVS too. Is Giles-Like-Guy right to assassinate Spike if he perceives him as a threat to the world (read "national security")? Is Buffy right to protect a dangerous Spike out of 1) love or 2) because he's necessary to the war...better to risk a few people's lives now than six billion later, or 3) love and because he's necessary to the world? Is Buffy right to decide she would kill Dawn if she had to, and does she mean it? If she does, can Shannon guest star in the ep and help Buffy do the deed? Buffy says you can't fight evil by doing evil. Is she right? Can you even say that there are any steps that can be taken to fight evil that can be called evil? If a method is used to fight evil can't it be argued that method is not evil, no matter how unpleasant it is? Is it indeed evil, but necessary? Or is there never an excuse to use evil means to fight and if so, what do we expect to be the consequences of giving up evil means to an end? Of course, these issues are debated every day right now re the USA bombing Iraq, the reason given that it's necessary for national security. How many American and Iraqi lives is the USA and her allies to sacrifice? 10? 100? 1,000? 100,000? Is there a line and if so, where do you draw it? Does fighting evil necessitate evil means and if so, does that mean fighting evil will probably make you hard, callous, amoral or evil yourself? [Wes, maybe Cordelia, Angel sometimes, Willow, Buffy sometimes.] Rose "No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne Girls have human rights, too

2003-03-26 20:22:59+00:00 - Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


So many issues involving warfare and torture seem to be ringing true right now. The issue of torture has come up in the USA... The USA supposedly doesn't allow torture, but does engage in torture-like tactics and sends some suspected terrorists to other countries to be tortured in order to extract information. There is a debate as to whether this is hypocritical, whether it goes against everything the USA stands for, or whether desperate times call for desperate measures ergo it's justified. Even if it is justified, does it endanger the USA's own prisoners of war if the USA doesn't follow the spirit (even if it does follow the letter) of the Geneva Convention? We had this issue come up on Angel a couple of weeks ago. Wesley tortured someone for information vital to protecting vast numbers of the public from Angelus. This goes farther than the debate in the US as she was not suspected of being on "the other side", she was just a bystander. Was Wes right to torture her, or was Faith right that he went too far? The issue of "desperate measures in desperate times: comes up on BtVS too. Is Giles-Like-Guy right to assassinate Spike if he perceives him as a threat to the world (read "national security")? Is Buffy right to protect a dangerous Spike out of 1) love or 2) because he's necessary to the war...better to risk a few people's lives now than six billion later, or 3) love and because he's necessary to the world? Is Buffy right to decide she would kill Dawn if she had to, and does she mean it? If she does, can Shannon guest star in the ep and help Buffy do the deed? Buffy says you can't fight evil by doing evil. Is she right? Can you even say that there are any steps that can be taken to fight evil that can be called evil? If a method is used to fight evil can't it be argued that method is not evil, no matter how unpleasant it is? Is it indeed evil, but necessary? Or is there never an excuse to use evil means to fight and if so, what do we expect to be the consequences of giving up evil means to an end? Of course, these issues are debated every day right now re the USA bombing Iraq, the reason given that it's necessary for national security. How many American and Iraqi lives is the USA and her allies to sacrifice? 10? 100? 1,000? 100,000? Is there a line and if so, where do you draw it? Does fighting evil necessitate evil means and if so, does that mean fighting evil will probably make you hard, callous, amoral or evil yourself? [Wes, maybe Cordelia, Angel sometimes, Willow, Buffy sometimes.] Rose "No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne Girls have human rights, too

2003-03-27 00:00:49+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (vidimus)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in news:20030326152259.01169.00000243@mb-fh.aol.com: > So many issues involving warfare and torture seem to be ringing true > right now. > > The issue of torture has come up in the USA... The USA supposedly > doesn't allow torture, but does engage in torture-like tactics and > sends some suspected terrorists to other countries to be tortured in > order to extract information. There is a debate as to whether this is > hypocritical, whether it goes against everything the USA stands for, > or whether desperate times call for desperate measures ergo it's > justified. Even if it is justified, does it endanger the USA's own > prisoners of war if the USA doesn't follow the spirit (even if it does > follow the letter) of the Geneva Convention? > > We had this issue come up on Angel a couple of weeks ago. Wesley > tortured someone for information vital to protecting vast numbers of > the public from Angelus. This goes farther than the debate in the US > as she was not suspected of being on "the other side", she was just a > bystander. Was Wes right to torture her, or was Faith right that he > went too far? > > The issue of "desperate measures in desperate times: comes up on BtVS > too. Is Giles-Like-Guy right to assassinate Spike if he perceives him > as a threat to the world (read "national security")? Is Buffy right > to protect a dangerous Spike out of 1) love or 2) because he's > necessary to the war...better to risk a few people's lives now than > six billion later, or 3) love and because he's necessary to the world? > Is Buffy right to decide she would kill Dawn if she had to, and does > she mean it? If she does, can Shannon guest star in the ep and help > Buffy do the deed? > What strike me is the parallel between Lies My Parents Told Me and The Gift. In the Gift : Giles wants to kill Dawn, Buffy refuses In Lies My Parents Told Me : Giles wants to kill Spike, Buffy refuses But there is definitely a difference in their motives. When Giles wanted to kill Dawn that was to save the world and now he wants to kill Spike as a preventive because maybe, he's gonna kill someone. And when Buffy didn't want to kill Dawn otherwise the world would be a nonsense to her, now she doesn't want to kill Spike because he's useful. So my answer is 2, but I hope that I'm wrong and the good answer will be 3 and maybe (we can dream) 1. The Gift was the last episode of season 5, 5 episodes remain till the end of this season. So I'm five by five about Giles and Buffy's motives, the situation is going to change. > Buffy says you can't fight evil by doing evil. Is she right? Can you > even say that there are any steps that can be taken to fight evil that > can be called evil? If a method is used to fight evil can't it be > argued that method is not evil, no matter how unpleasant it is? Is it > indeed evil, but necessary? Or is there never an excuse to use evil > means to fight and if so, what do we expect to be the consequences of > giving up evil means to an end? Of course, these issues are debated > every day right now re the USA bombing Iraq, the reason given that > it's necessary for national security. How many American and Iraqi > lives is the USA and her allies to sacrifice? 10? 100? 1,000? > 100,000? Is there a line and if so, where do you draw it? > > Does fighting evil necessitate evil means and if so, does that mean > fighting evil will probably make you hard, callous, amoral or evil > yourself? [Wes, maybe Cordelia, Angel sometimes, Willow, Buffy > sometimes.] > Like Jim Cunningham said "That's a hard one" Here what I think: To fight evil, it's almost sure that you have to use evil to defeat him. You have the freedom of use evil but, if you're on the right side, a responsibility is associated to this freedom. If to bring down the evil you copy his methods, his weapons and his nature, and then after beat him you only say "we have done, forget what I did", you're not better than him. You have to accept to be judged and pay for what you did and that's your responsibility. It's like a sacrifice, you have beaten the evil but to do that you have become impregnated with him. So, when you chose to use evil, you already knew that you will be punished and you accept this punishment and don't feel remorses. For me it's the only way to forgive or at least understand the use of evil to fight evil. vidimus. "That's what's so illogical, you know, about being a Smurf. What's the point of living... if you don't have a dick?" Donnie.

2003-03-27 00:00:49+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (vidimus)


fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote in news:20030326152259.01169.00000243@mb-fh.aol.com: > So many issues involving warfare and torture seem to be ringing true > right now. > > The issue of torture has come up in the USA... The USA supposedly > doesn't allow torture, but does engage in torture-like tactics and > sends some suspected terrorists to other countries to be tortured in > order to extract information. There is a debate as to whether this is > hypocritical, whether it goes against everything the USA stands for, > or whether desperate times call for desperate measures ergo it's > justified. Even if it is justified, does it endanger the USA's own > prisoners of war if the USA doesn't follow the spirit (even if it does > follow the letter) of the Geneva Convention? > > We had this issue come up on Angel a couple of weeks ago. Wesley > tortured someone for information vital to protecting vast numbers of > the public from Angelus. This goes farther than the debate in the US > as she was not suspected of being on "the other side", she was just a > bystander. Was Wes right to torture her, or was Faith right that he > went too far? > > The issue of "desperate measures in desperate times: comes up on BtVS > too. Is Giles-Like-Guy right to assassinate Spike if he perceives him > as a threat to the world (read "national security")? Is Buffy right > to protect a dangerous Spike out of 1) love or 2) because he's > necessary to the war...better to risk a few people's lives now than > six billion later, or 3) love and because he's necessary to the world? > Is Buffy right to decide she would kill Dawn if she had to, and does > she mean it? If she does, can Shannon guest star in the ep and help > Buffy do the deed? > What strike me is the parallel between Lies My Parents Told Me and The Gift. In the Gift : Giles wants to kill Dawn, Buffy refuses In Lies My Parents Told Me : Giles wants to kill Spike, Buffy refuses But there is definitely a difference in their motives. When Giles wanted to kill Dawn that was to save the world and now he wants to kill Spike as a preventive because maybe, he's gonna kill someone. And when Buffy didn't want to kill Dawn otherwise the world would be a nonsense to her, now she doesn't want to kill Spike because he's useful. So my answer is 2, but I hope that I'm wrong and the good answer will be 3 and maybe (we can dream) 1. The Gift was the last episode of season 5, 5 episodes remain till the end of this season. So I'm five by five about Giles and Buffy's motives, the situation is going to change. > Buffy says you can't fight evil by doing evil. Is she right? Can you > even say that there are any steps that can be taken to fight evil that > can be called evil? If a method is used to fight evil can't it be > argued that method is not evil, no matter how unpleasant it is? Is it > indeed evil, but necessary? Or is there never an excuse to use evil > means to fight and if so, what do we expect to be the consequences of > giving up evil means to an end? Of course, these issues are debated > every day right now re the USA bombing Iraq, the reason given that > it's necessary for national security. How many American and Iraqi > lives is the USA and her allies to sacrifice? 10? 100? 1,000? > 100,000? Is there a line and if so, where do you draw it? > > Does fighting evil necessitate evil means and if so, does that mean > fighting evil will probably make you hard, callous, amoral or evil > yourself? [Wes, maybe Cordelia, Angel sometimes, Willow, Buffy > sometimes.] > Like Jim Cunningham said "That's a hard one" Here what I think: To fight evil, it's almost sure that you have to use evil to defeat him. You have the freedom of use evil but, if you're on the right side, a responsibility is associated to this freedom. If to bring down the evil you copy his methods, his weapons and his nature, and then after beat him you only say "we have done, forget what I did", you're not better than him. You have to accept to be judged and pay for what you did and that's your responsibility. It's like a sacrifice, you have beaten the evil but to do that you have become impregnated with him. So, when you chose to use evil, you already knew that you will be punished and you accept this punishment and don't feel remorses. For me it's the only way to forgive or at least understand the use of evil to fight evil. vidimus. "That's what's so illogical, you know, about being a Smurf. What's the point of living... if you don't have a dick?" Donnie.

2003-03-27 00:54:04-06:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (Zombie Elvis <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net>)


It was a time of great turmoil. The strong preyed on the weak, dogs and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness: "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in <jKidnfjvLbGzhx-jXTWc3A@comcast.com>: > > > "Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > news:20030326152259.01169.00000243@mb-fh.aol.com... > > So many issues involving warfare and torture seem to be ringing true right > now. > > We had this issue come up on Angel a couple of weeks ago. Wesley tortured > > someone for information vital to protecting vast numbers of the public > from > > Angelus. This goes farther than the debate in the US as she was not > suspected > > of being on "the other side", she was just a bystander. Was Wes right to > > torture her, or was Faith right that he went too far? > > > I think Faith was right. Wesley had no business torturing a human like > that. For one thing he had no good evidence that she actually even knew > anything. He was torturing her on the off chance that she did. And the WESLEY: The tracks on your. You've been here two or three days straight. Answer me! JUNKIE: Four days. WESLEY: Then you must've seen the vampire we're looking for. Not exactly the sort of evidence that would convince a judge to issue a warrant but then no judge would approve of torture so Wesley in his mind had all the evidence he needed once he chose to cross the line and use torture. > information she was able to provide wasn't anything that Faith and Wesley > couldn't have uncovered on their own without resorting to torture. Faith punched her and she still told her she didn't know anything. -- "Now, wait a minute. You think I'm evil if I bring a group of girls on a camping trip and *don't* touch them?" -- Rupert Giles Roberto Castillo robertocastillo@ameritech.net http://www.enteract.com/~castillo

2003-03-27 00:54:04-06:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (Zombie Elvis <DELETE-ME-2-REPLY-robertocastillo@ameritech.net>)


It was a time of great turmoil. The strong preyed on the weak, dogs and cats lived together. One voice cried out in the wilderness: "DarkMagic" <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote in <jKidnfjvLbGzhx-jXTWc3A@comcast.com>: > > > "Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > news:20030326152259.01169.00000243@mb-fh.aol.com... > > So many issues involving warfare and torture seem to be ringing true right > now. > > We had this issue come up on Angel a couple of weeks ago. Wesley tortured > > someone for information vital to protecting vast numbers of the public > from > > Angelus. This goes farther than the debate in the US as she was not > suspected > > of being on "the other side", she was just a bystander. Was Wes right to > > torture her, or was Faith right that he went too far? > > > I think Faith was right. Wesley had no business torturing a human like > that. For one thing he had no good evidence that she actually even knew > anything. He was torturing her on the off chance that she did. And the WESLEY: The tracks on your. You've been here two or three days straight. Answer me! JUNKIE: Four days. WESLEY: Then you must've seen the vampire we're looking for. Not exactly the sort of evidence that would convince a judge to issue a warrant but then no judge would approve of torture so Wesley in his mind had all the evidence he needed once he chose to cross the line and use torture. > information she was able to provide wasn't anything that Faith and Wesley > couldn't have uncovered on their own without resorting to torture. Faith punched her and she still told her she didn't know anything. -- "Now, wait a minute. You think I'm evil if I bring a group of girls on a camping trip and *don't* touch them?" -- Rupert Giles Roberto Castillo robertocastillo@ameritech.net http://www.enteract.com/~castillo

2003-03-27 01:57:17+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (paulfxfoley@aol.com)


Rose wrote: << We had this issue come up on Angel a couple of weeks ago. Wesley tortured someone for information vital to protecting vast numbers of the public from Angelus. This goes farther than the debate in the US as she was not suspected of being on "the other side", she was just a bystander. Was Wes right to torture her, or was Faith right that he went too far? >> Wesley is behaving like a mental case. His best and only friend is a shotgun. Jeez, people complained that Buffy was too dark last season. On Angel, Angelus is back inside Angel's skin, Cordy is evil, Wesley is acting like a psycopath, Connor is as brutal and brooding as ever, Gunn is in a funk, and Fred is sad and moping. I'm beginning to hope that the world DOES come to an end. Their world, anyway. The show is ugly and no fun at all. Until Willow showed up, that is. --Paul ------------------------- On her white Breast a sparkling Cross she wore / That Jews might kiss, and Infidels adore. --Alexander Pope

2003-03-27 01:57:17+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (paulfxfoley@aol.com)


Rose wrote: << We had this issue come up on Angel a couple of weeks ago. Wesley tortured someone for information vital to protecting vast numbers of the public from Angelus. This goes farther than the debate in the US as she was not suspected of being on "the other side", she was just a bystander. Was Wes right to torture her, or was Faith right that he went too far? >> Wesley is behaving like a mental case. His best and only friend is a shotgun. Jeez, people complained that Buffy was too dark last season. On Angel, Angelus is back inside Angel's skin, Cordy is evil, Wesley is acting like a psycopath, Connor is as brutal and brooding as ever, Gunn is in a funk, and Fred is sad and moping. I'm beginning to hope that the world DOES come to an end. Their world, anyway. The show is ugly and no fun at all. Until Willow showed up, that is. --Paul ------------------------- On her white Breast a sparkling Cross she wore / That Jews might kiss, and Infidels adore. --Alexander Pope

2003-03-27 10:27:21-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e4f48v8l0ht9khct60af807vpcr16r4sd1@4ax.com... > On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:22:44 -0500, "DarkMagic" > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> Buffy says you can't fight evil by doing evil. Is she right? > > > >No. I'm a firm believer in the death penalty. Which inarguably is evil. > >Still, dead men don't rape and murder again, ever. Same goes for child > >molesters, who are incurable. Yet, they are released into our society again > >and again to continue stalking and molesting children. Many of these > >criminals graduate to kidnapping, rape and murder. > > The problem I have with the death penalty has nothing to do with its > level of evil, it has to do with the fact that its never applied > fairly. Even in the USA most of the people on death row are poor and > black. > Which is why I believe it's evil. If there was never any doubt regarding a persons guilt it wouldn't be evil, it would be justice. > And really I don't think the courts or the government should have that > kind of power, normal people are just too vulnerable. Some people > should just never be allowed out of prison. > Which ones? And who gets to decide? More to the point, who foots the bill for their food, clothing, shelter and medical care in the meantime? I have a problem with my tax dollars going to cover the life essentials of convicted criminals when honest, innocent, citizens are not guaranteed the same. The innocent baby of the crack addict has no medical coverage. The crack dealer, if convicted, is covered 100%. > >Abortion, too, I believe is evil. But a necessary evil. Sometimes maybe a > >lesser evil, sometimes not. I don't think that government is in a position > >to decide these things for people, however. > > > >And just to cover all bases, I'm in favor of euthanasia, also. Not > >inherently evil, I believe, but unquestionably bordering on a slippery slope > >that could lead to evil of unimaginable proportions. > > The problem with any killing is that you can't undo it. I think its a > personal decision in both cases, but I think its also something that > has to be monitored closely, although certainly not criminalized. > > Governments should have the job of protecting people, not putting > people down. Killing someone should never be an easy process and the > decision should only be made by those involved. > Agreed. > >I am unqualifying uncomfortable with 1 dead American. Still, I believe > >Hussein is a threat to the world and especially to the Iraqi people. The > >question in my mind is "Was war our only option here?" For the sakes of > >those who have been sacrificed already I hope history tells us that it was. > > The victors write the history books. > Has Vietnam written a history book? In any case, with today's modern media coverage it has become much more difficult, if not impossible, for a government to get away with waging an unfair or unjust war. > >> Does fighting evil necessitate evil means and if so, does that mean > >fighting > >> evil will probably make you hard, callous, amoral or evil yourself? > > > >Amoral, perhaps. Hard, certainly. Not necessarily callous, or evil, > >though. Certainly having the power to make and carry out evil decisions > >enhances an individuals capacity for evil. Recognizing that, and > >controlling it, is the key to *not* becoming evil. Buffy and Angel > >understand this. Faith does now as well, I believe. Willow, Spike, Wesley, > >etc....are still up for grabs. > > I think Buffy used to know it, but now I'm not so sure about now. I > think she is struggling with it, but has too many people around her > like Giles and Wood, and Spike for that matter. I think seeing Faith > again is going to be a wakeup call for her in more ways than one. > > ME loves irony, and I see a lot in Buffy's future. Buffy's future is very short as far as ME's coverage of her story is concerned. Not a lot of time left to cram in irony. Still, Buffy as a metaphor for modern justice is pretty accurate. The Slayer is the judge, jury, and executioner. It's up to her to decide who is evil, who is redeemable, and who needs to die. Undoubtedly, sometimes she will be wrong. Should she stop slaying altogether in case she makes the wrong decision? Should she just kill them all and write some off as necessary sacrifices to the cause? I wouldn't want to be in her shoes, not for a minute. And I think way too many posters here are too quick to judge her actions and behavior. > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-27 10:27:21-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e4f48v8l0ht9khct60af807vpcr16r4sd1@4ax.com... > On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 16:22:44 -0500, "DarkMagic" > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> Buffy says you can't fight evil by doing evil. Is she right? > > > >No. I'm a firm believer in the death penalty. Which inarguably is evil. > >Still, dead men don't rape and murder again, ever. Same goes for child > >molesters, who are incurable. Yet, they are released into our society again > >and again to continue stalking and molesting children. Many of these > >criminals graduate to kidnapping, rape and murder. > > The problem I have with the death penalty has nothing to do with its > level of evil, it has to do with the fact that its never applied > fairly. Even in the USA most of the people on death row are poor and > black. > Which is why I believe it's evil. If there was never any doubt regarding a persons guilt it wouldn't be evil, it would be justice. > And really I don't think the courts or the government should have that > kind of power, normal people are just too vulnerable. Some people > should just never be allowed out of prison. > Which ones? And who gets to decide? More to the point, who foots the bill for their food, clothing, shelter and medical care in the meantime? I have a problem with my tax dollars going to cover the life essentials of convicted criminals when honest, innocent, citizens are not guaranteed the same. The innocent baby of the crack addict has no medical coverage. The crack dealer, if convicted, is covered 100%. > >Abortion, too, I believe is evil. But a necessary evil. Sometimes maybe a > >lesser evil, sometimes not. I don't think that government is in a position > >to decide these things for people, however. > > > >And just to cover all bases, I'm in favor of euthanasia, also. Not > >inherently evil, I believe, but unquestionably bordering on a slippery slope > >that could lead to evil of unimaginable proportions. > > The problem with any killing is that you can't undo it. I think its a > personal decision in both cases, but I think its also something that > has to be monitored closely, although certainly not criminalized. > > Governments should have the job of protecting people, not putting > people down. Killing someone should never be an easy process and the > decision should only be made by those involved. > Agreed. > >I am unqualifying uncomfortable with 1 dead American. Still, I believe > >Hussein is a threat to the world and especially to the Iraqi people. The > >question in my mind is "Was war our only option here?" For the sakes of > >those who have been sacrificed already I hope history tells us that it was. > > The victors write the history books. > Has Vietnam written a history book? In any case, with today's modern media coverage it has become much more difficult, if not impossible, for a government to get away with waging an unfair or unjust war. > >> Does fighting evil necessitate evil means and if so, does that mean > >fighting > >> evil will probably make you hard, callous, amoral or evil yourself? > > > >Amoral, perhaps. Hard, certainly. Not necessarily callous, or evil, > >though. Certainly having the power to make and carry out evil decisions > >enhances an individuals capacity for evil. Recognizing that, and > >controlling it, is the key to *not* becoming evil. Buffy and Angel > >understand this. Faith does now as well, I believe. Willow, Spike, Wesley, > >etc....are still up for grabs. > > I think Buffy used to know it, but now I'm not so sure about now. I > think she is struggling with it, but has too many people around her > like Giles and Wood, and Spike for that matter. I think seeing Faith > again is going to be a wakeup call for her in more ways than one. > > ME loves irony, and I see a lot in Buffy's future. Buffy's future is very short as far as ME's coverage of her story is concerned. Not a lot of time left to cram in irony. Still, Buffy as a metaphor for modern justice is pretty accurate. The Slayer is the judge, jury, and executioner. It's up to her to decide who is evil, who is redeemable, and who needs to die. Undoubtedly, sometimes she will be wrong. Should she stop slaying altogether in case she makes the wrong decision? Should she just kill them all and write some off as necessary sacrifices to the cause? I wouldn't want to be in her shoes, not for a minute. And I think way too many posters here are too quick to judge her actions and behavior. > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-27 14:45:56-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dog68vsulinvcg1e1ls5gg3nn77baqmiv2@4ax.com... > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:27:21 -0500, "DarkMagic" > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > >> The problem I have with the death penalty has nothing to do with its > >> level of evil, it has to do with the fact that its never applied > >> fairly. Even in the USA most of the people on death row are poor and > >> black. > >> > >Which is why I believe it's evil. If there was never any doubt regarding a > >persons guilt it wouldn't be evil, it would be justice. > > I think capital punishment is simple revenge. It has nothing to do > with justice, or deterrence or any of the other justifications people > have for it. And I think revenge makes us all criminal, just like > Anya's former job, just like Wood going after spike. And it puts the > USA in the same group as countries like Iran. Can that really be a > good thing? > I think revenge can be an absolutely delightful thing. Especially when it's well deserved. But I, admittedly, am evil. > > >> The victors write the history books. > >> > >Has Vietnam written a history book? > > The hippies won that war. At least they accomplished something. Those tie-dyed, long haired, ne'er do wells. > > >> ME loves irony, and I see a lot in Buffy's future. > > > >Buffy's future is very short as far as ME's coverage of her story is > >concerned. Not a lot of time left to cram in irony. Still, Buffy as a > >metaphor for modern justice is pretty accurate. The Slayer is the judge, > >jury, and executioner. It's up to her to decide who is evil, who is > >redeemable, and who needs to die. Undoubtedly, sometimes she will be wrong. > >Should she stop slaying altogether in case she makes the wrong decision? > >Should she just kill them all and write some off as necessary sacrifices to > >the cause? I wouldn't want to be in her shoes, not for a minute. And I > >think way too many posters here are too quick to judge her actions and > >behavior. > > I think Buffy has a hard job, but its because she makes it hard. > > Its never been the slayers job to decide anything. The slayer is about > killing demons. The judge and jury were those old men who chained the > first slayer to a rock. The slayer is the executioner, pure and > simple. > So, you think Buffy should just be the mindless minion of the established patriarchy and her life would be much easier? > Buffy is more like a loose cannon executioner who overrules decisions > already made, for good or bad. She's a cowboy. > > From my perspective, comparing a demon to a real human is just wrong. > Demons are a separate thing. They are evil. I'm not a believer in > 'evil', so real life is completely different in my view. BtVS is the > story about a girl who overcomes the oppression of her calling, in > other words its a metaphor about womanhood, its not really about how > human criminals should be treated. And Buffy herself has made this > clear on several occasions. > Yes, but I generally have disagreed with her on those occasions. Nobody deserved flaying more than Warren. And Holland Manors met a very poetically just end to his monstrous life. > All that said, I think Buffy is honestly trying to do 'right' and I > think she is brave and strong and it sometimes amazes me how much > leeway 'evil' characters are given by 'fans', and how judgemental some > are of Buffy. > I get really cranky at posters who aren't nice to Buffy. It's a thing. Shannon

2003-03-27 14:45:56-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dog68vsulinvcg1e1ls5gg3nn77baqmiv2@4ax.com... > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:27:21 -0500, "DarkMagic" > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > >> The problem I have with the death penalty has nothing to do with its > >> level of evil, it has to do with the fact that its never applied > >> fairly. Even in the USA most of the people on death row are poor and > >> black. > >> > >Which is why I believe it's evil. If there was never any doubt regarding a > >persons guilt it wouldn't be evil, it would be justice. > > I think capital punishment is simple revenge. It has nothing to do > with justice, or deterrence or any of the other justifications people > have for it. And I think revenge makes us all criminal, just like > Anya's former job, just like Wood going after spike. And it puts the > USA in the same group as countries like Iran. Can that really be a > good thing? > I think revenge can be an absolutely delightful thing. Especially when it's well deserved. But I, admittedly, am evil. > > >> The victors write the history books. > >> > >Has Vietnam written a history book? > > The hippies won that war. At least they accomplished something. Those tie-dyed, long haired, ne'er do wells. > > >> ME loves irony, and I see a lot in Buffy's future. > > > >Buffy's future is very short as far as ME's coverage of her story is > >concerned. Not a lot of time left to cram in irony. Still, Buffy as a > >metaphor for modern justice is pretty accurate. The Slayer is the judge, > >jury, and executioner. It's up to her to decide who is evil, who is > >redeemable, and who needs to die. Undoubtedly, sometimes she will be wrong. > >Should she stop slaying altogether in case she makes the wrong decision? > >Should she just kill them all and write some off as necessary sacrifices to > >the cause? I wouldn't want to be in her shoes, not for a minute. And I > >think way too many posters here are too quick to judge her actions and > >behavior. > > I think Buffy has a hard job, but its because she makes it hard. > > Its never been the slayers job to decide anything. The slayer is about > killing demons. The judge and jury were those old men who chained the > first slayer to a rock. The slayer is the executioner, pure and > simple. > So, you think Buffy should just be the mindless minion of the established patriarchy and her life would be much easier? > Buffy is more like a loose cannon executioner who overrules decisions > already made, for good or bad. She's a cowboy. > > From my perspective, comparing a demon to a real human is just wrong. > Demons are a separate thing. They are evil. I'm not a believer in > 'evil', so real life is completely different in my view. BtVS is the > story about a girl who overcomes the oppression of her calling, in > other words its a metaphor about womanhood, its not really about how > human criminals should be treated. And Buffy herself has made this > clear on several occasions. > Yes, but I generally have disagreed with her on those occasions. Nobody deserved flaying more than Warren. And Holland Manors met a very poetically just end to his monstrous life. > All that said, I think Buffy is honestly trying to do 'right' and I > think she is brave and strong and it sometimes amazes me how much > leeway 'evil' characters are given by 'fans', and how judgemental some > are of Buffy. > I get really cranky at posters who aren't nice to Buffy. It's a thing. Shannon

2003-03-27 20:59:13-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eqm68v0bveq8fnljenuorcgkdd3o8uat8v@4ax.com... > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:45:56 -0500, "DarkMagic" > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> Its never been the slayers job to decide anything. The slayer is about > >> killing demons. The judge and jury were those old men who chained the > >> first slayer to a rock. The slayer is the executioner, pure and > >> simple. > >> > >So, you think Buffy should just be the mindless minion of the established > >patriarchy and her life would be much easier? > > Well it would be easier, and probably shorter. Lots less brooding > etc... My point is that the show is a metaphor, its not literal. > Taking it literally ignores the entire patriarchy issue actually. This > show isn't about buffy always being right, its about her taking > control of her life, for good and bad. Actually, I think it's about how hard it is to tell the difference between good and bad. Which is also a very valid comparison to reality. And how the older you get and the longer you live the less black and white the world seems and the less it seems to matter, sometimes, who is right and who is wrong. > > And no, I don't want every cop out there in the real world to overcome > the 'oppression' of the rule of law. Buffy is not about law, its about > fighting demons, which is a metaphor. Its not about criminals. > I think it is about criminals. And just about any other aspect of human society you can think of. Which is why it's so fascinating and interpreted in so many ways, on so many levels, by a whole lot of very smart people. (I include you, and I, in that of course ;) > >> Buffy is more like a loose cannon executioner who overrules decisions > >> already made, for good or bad. She's a cowboy. > >> > >> From my perspective, comparing a demon to a real human is just wrong. > >> Demons are a separate thing. They are evil. I'm not a believer in > >> 'evil', so real life is completely different in my view. BtVS is the > >> story about a girl who overcomes the oppression of her calling, in > >> other words its a metaphor about womanhood, its not really about how > >> human criminals should be treated. And Buffy herself has made this > >> clear on several occasions. > >> > >Yes, but I generally have disagreed with her on those occasions. Nobody > >deserved flaying more than Warren. And Holland Manors met a very poetically > >just end to his monstrous life. > > Poetic justice and legal justice not the same. Like I have said > before, there is 'wanting' and there is 'doing'. Wood wanting to > torture spike to death is understandable, Wood actually doing it is > another thing entirely. > > If you become a criminal in reaction to crime, you make yourself the > victim all over again. I don't know, Willow didn't seem so much a victim when she ripped the flesh off of Warren's body as she did an avenging goddess. However, I do draw the line at her wanting to slaughter Jonathon and Andrew, torturing Giles, and trying to end the world. > > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-27 20:59:13-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"st" <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:eqm68v0bveq8fnljenuorcgkdd3o8uat8v@4ax.com... > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:45:56 -0500, "DarkMagic" > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> Its never been the slayers job to decide anything. The slayer is about > >> killing demons. The judge and jury were those old men who chained the > >> first slayer to a rock. The slayer is the executioner, pure and > >> simple. > >> > >So, you think Buffy should just be the mindless minion of the established > >patriarchy and her life would be much easier? > > Well it would be easier, and probably shorter. Lots less brooding > etc... My point is that the show is a metaphor, its not literal. > Taking it literally ignores the entire patriarchy issue actually. This > show isn't about buffy always being right, its about her taking > control of her life, for good and bad. Actually, I think it's about how hard it is to tell the difference between good and bad. Which is also a very valid comparison to reality. And how the older you get and the longer you live the less black and white the world seems and the less it seems to matter, sometimes, who is right and who is wrong. > > And no, I don't want every cop out there in the real world to overcome > the 'oppression' of the rule of law. Buffy is not about law, its about > fighting demons, which is a metaphor. Its not about criminals. > I think it is about criminals. And just about any other aspect of human society you can think of. Which is why it's so fascinating and interpreted in so many ways, on so many levels, by a whole lot of very smart people. (I include you, and I, in that of course ;) > >> Buffy is more like a loose cannon executioner who overrules decisions > >> already made, for good or bad. She's a cowboy. > >> > >> From my perspective, comparing a demon to a real human is just wrong. > >> Demons are a separate thing. They are evil. I'm not a believer in > >> 'evil', so real life is completely different in my view. BtVS is the > >> story about a girl who overcomes the oppression of her calling, in > >> other words its a metaphor about womanhood, its not really about how > >> human criminals should be treated. And Buffy herself has made this > >> clear on several occasions. > >> > >Yes, but I generally have disagreed with her on those occasions. Nobody > >deserved flaying more than Warren. And Holland Manors met a very poetically > >just end to his monstrous life. > > Poetic justice and legal justice not the same. Like I have said > before, there is 'wanting' and there is 'doing'. Wood wanting to > torture spike to death is understandable, Wood actually doing it is > another thing entirely. > > If you become a criminal in reaction to crime, you make yourself the > victim all over again. I don't know, Willow didn't seem so much a victim when she ripped the flesh off of Warren's body as she did an avenging goddess. However, I do draw the line at her wanting to slaughter Jonathon and Andrew, torturing Giles, and trying to end the world. > > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-03-27 21:40:17-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030327211200.24173.00000012@mb-ck.aol.com... > Shannon wrote: > > > > >I don't know, Willow didn't seem so much a victim when she ripped the flesh > >off of Warren's body as she did an avenging goddess. However, I do draw the > >line at her wanting to slaughter Jonathon and Andrew, torturing Giles, and > >trying to end the world. > >> > > > > Killing Warren started her on the slippery slope. She went from a justified > desire for vengeance, to extending that to his friends, to extending that to > her drug dealer who had nothing to do with Tara's death and didn't exactly > force Willow at gunpoint to buy his wares, to extending that to anyone who > tried to stop her. I know, I know. That darn slippery slope gets us evil people every time! ;) Are you, in effect, saying then that if I succeed in sending Donald Rumsfeld and Dawn into another dimension that any Joss, Marti, or Jane who displeases me might go in next? > > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > >

2003-03-27 21:40:17-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030327211200.24173.00000012@mb-ck.aol.com... > Shannon wrote: > > > > >I don't know, Willow didn't seem so much a victim when she ripped the flesh > >off of Warren's body as she did an avenging goddess. However, I do draw the > >line at her wanting to slaughter Jonathon and Andrew, torturing Giles, and > >trying to end the world. > >> > > > > Killing Warren started her on the slippery slope. She went from a justified > desire for vengeance, to extending that to his friends, to extending that to > her drug dealer who had nothing to do with Tara's death and didn't exactly > force Willow at gunpoint to buy his wares, to extending that to anyone who > tried to stop her. I know, I know. That darn slippery slope gets us evil people every time! ;) Are you, in effect, saying then that if I succeed in sending Donald Rumsfeld and Dawn into another dimension that any Joss, Marti, or Jane who displeases me might go in next? > > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." > >

2003-03-27 21:46:27-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030327211000.24173.00000011@mb-ck.aol.com... > Shannon wrote: > > > > >Yes, but I generally have disagreed with her on those occasions. Nobody > >deserved flaying more than Warren. And Holland Manors met a very poetically > >just end to his monstrous life. > > > > These statements are both true, however, Willow is an illustration of what can > become of a person, and society, when vigilante justice is permitted. It is > not up to Willow to decide who lives and who dies. What if Xander had made a > mistake, and it wasn't Warren at all who shot the gun but some guy who looked > like him? Well, the fact that Warren was running from her like hell was another really good clue. And then, he did admit it before she flayed him. Plus, I said last season that Buffy and Willow were justified in dealing with Warren because he was far too powerful for the authorities to handle. The same reason that Giles took Willow to England rather than to the police, or that Angel tried to deal with Faith. If vendettas took the place of the criminal justice system, people > would be killing each other over way more than cold blooded murder. Without vendettas everybody and his Uncle Tony would be out of a job. Seriously, though, I agree that vigilante justice, if it was ever legal or approved of, would get scarily out of control and quickly. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that I wouldn't see to it that a person who molested my child (ptb forbid) or murdered my spouse (again with the ptb forbid) got a little more justice than they bargained for. > > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." >

2003-03-27 21:46:27-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message news:20030327211000.24173.00000011@mb-ck.aol.com... > Shannon wrote: > > > > >Yes, but I generally have disagreed with her on those occasions. Nobody > >deserved flaying more than Warren. And Holland Manors met a very poetically > >just end to his monstrous life. > > > > These statements are both true, however, Willow is an illustration of what can > become of a person, and society, when vigilante justice is permitted. It is > not up to Willow to decide who lives and who dies. What if Xander had made a > mistake, and it wasn't Warren at all who shot the gun but some guy who looked > like him? Well, the fact that Warren was running from her like hell was another really good clue. And then, he did admit it before she flayed him. Plus, I said last season that Buffy and Willow were justified in dealing with Warren because he was far too powerful for the authorities to handle. The same reason that Giles took Willow to England rather than to the police, or that Angel tried to deal with Faith. If vendettas took the place of the criminal justice system, people > would be killing each other over way more than cold blooded murder. Without vendettas everybody and his Uncle Tony would be out of a job. Seriously, though, I agree that vigilante justice, if it was ever legal or approved of, would get scarily out of control and quickly. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that I wouldn't see to it that a person who molested my child (ptb forbid) or murdered my spouse (again with the ptb forbid) got a little more justice than they bargained for. > > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here." >

2003-03-28 02:10:00+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Shannon wrote: > >Yes, but I generally have disagreed with her on those occasions. Nobody >deserved flaying more than Warren. And Holland Manors met a very poetically >just end to his monstrous life. > These statements are both true, however, Willow is an illustration of what can become of a person, and society, when vigilante justice is permitted. It is not up to Willow to decide who lives and who dies. What if Xander had made a mistake, and it wasn't Warren at all who shot the gun but some guy who looked like him? If vendettas took the place of the criminal justice system, people would be killing each other over way more than cold blooded murder. Rose "No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne Girls have human rights, too

2003-03-28 02:10:00+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Shannon wrote: > >Yes, but I generally have disagreed with her on those occasions. Nobody >deserved flaying more than Warren. And Holland Manors met a very poetically >just end to his monstrous life. > These statements are both true, however, Willow is an illustration of what can become of a person, and society, when vigilante justice is permitted. It is not up to Willow to decide who lives and who dies. What if Xander had made a mistake, and it wasn't Warren at all who shot the gun but some guy who looked like him? If vendettas took the place of the criminal justice system, people would be killing each other over way more than cold blooded murder. Rose "No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne Girls have human rights, too

2003-03-28 02:12:00+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Shannon wrote: > >I don't know, Willow didn't seem so much a victim when she ripped the flesh >off of Warren's body as she did an avenging goddess. However, I do draw the >line at her wanting to slaughter Jonathon and Andrew, torturing Giles, and >trying to end the world. >> > Killing Warren started her on the slippery slope. She went from a justified desire for vengeance, to extending that to his friends, to extending that to her drug dealer who had nothing to do with Tara's death and didn't exactly force Willow at gunpoint to buy his wares, to extending that to anyone who tried to stop her. Rose "No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne Girls have human rights, too

2003-03-28 02:12:00+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


Shannon wrote: > >I don't know, Willow didn't seem so much a victim when she ripped the flesh >off of Warren's body as she did an avenging goddess. However, I do draw the >line at her wanting to slaughter Jonathon and Andrew, torturing Giles, and >trying to end the world. >> > Killing Warren started her on the slippery slope. She went from a justified desire for vengeance, to extending that to his friends, to extending that to her drug dealer who had nothing to do with Tara's death and didn't exactly force Willow at gunpoint to buy his wares, to extending that to anyone who tried to stop her. Rose "No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne Girls have human rights, too

2003-03-28 21:09:44-08:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (bja@ix.netcom.com)


Rose wrote: > So many issues involving warfare and torture seem to be ringing true right > now. > > The issue of torture has come up in the USA... The USA supposedly doesn't > allow torture, but does engage in torture-like tactics and sends some > suspected terrorists to other countries to be tortured in order to extract > information. There is a debate as to whether this is hypocritical, whether it > goes against everything the USA stands for, or whether desperate times call > for desperate measures ergo it's justified. Even if it is justified, does it > endanger the USA's own prisoners of war if the USA doesn't follow the spirit > (even if it does follow the letter) of the Geneva Convention? No. In the wars after World War II, none of America's enemies made a pretense of following the Geneva Convention, not the Korean War, not the Vietnam War, not Gulf War I, etc. The U.S. gains nothing in the way of safety of its personnel captured by an enemy by following any restrictions in the treatment of POWs it captures. The whole idea of the Geneva Convention is that in a war, if you treat our people right, we'll treat yours right. During the last half of the last century, it's never worked out that way. > We had this issue come up on Angel a couple of weeks ago. Wesley tortured > someone for information vital to protecting vast numbers of the public from > Angelus. This goes farther than the debate in the US as she was not suspected > of being on "the other side", she was just a bystander. Was Wes right to > torture her, or was Faith right that he went too far? > > The issue of "desperate measures in desperate times: comes up on BtVS too. Is > Giles-Like-Guy right to assassinate Spike if he perceives him as a threat to > the world (read "national security")? Is Buffy right to protect a dangerous > Spike out of 1) love or 2) because he's necessary to the war...better to risk > a few people's lives now than six billion later, or 3) love and because he's > necessary to the world? Is Buffy right to decide she would kill Dawn if she > had to, and does she mean it? If she does, can Shannon guest star in the ep > and help Buffy do the deed? > > Buffy says you can't fight evil by doing evil. Is she right? Depends. In any fight, neither side has any moral obligation to follow any restriction not followed by or enforced against the other. If evil follows no restriction, then it's open season on evil. > Can you even say that there are any steps that can be taken to fight evil > that can be called evil? If a method is used to fight evil can't it be > argued that method is not evil, no matter how unpleasant it is? Is it indeed > evil, but necessary? Or is there never an excuse to use evil means to fight > and if so, what do we expect to be the consequences of giving up evil means > to an end? The the means employed are measured, not just by how it works against a specific evil, but also against the totality of what we wish to accomplish. > Of course, these issues are debated every day right now re the USA > bombing Iraq, the reason given that it's necessary for national security. > How many American and Iraqi lives is the USA and her allies to sacrifice? > 10? 100? 1,000? 100,000? Is there a line and if so, where do you draw it? Whatever it takes. > Does fighting evil necessitate evil means... No. To say that certain means are evil is to say such means should be the sole prerogative of evil, to give evil an advantage. > ...and if so, does that mean fighting evil will probably make you hard, > callous, amoral or evil yourself? [Wes, maybe Cordelia, Angel sometimes, > Willow, Buffy sometimes.] One should be as hard and callous as necessary, but that can be done without having to be hard and callous all the time.

2003-03-28 21:09:44-08:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (bja@ix.netcom.com)


Rose wrote: > So many issues involving warfare and torture seem to be ringing true right > now. > > The issue of torture has come up in the USA... The USA supposedly doesn't > allow torture, but does engage in torture-like tactics and sends some > suspected terrorists to other countries to be tortured in order to extract > information. There is a debate as to whether this is hypocritical, whether it > goes against everything the USA stands for, or whether desperate times call > for desperate measures ergo it's justified. Even if it is justified, does it > endanger the USA's own prisoners of war if the USA doesn't follow the spirit > (even if it does follow the letter) of the Geneva Convention? No. In the wars after World War II, none of America's enemies made a pretense of following the Geneva Convention, not the Korean War, not the Vietnam War, not Gulf War I, etc. The U.S. gains nothing in the way of safety of its personnel captured by an enemy by following any restrictions in the treatment of POWs it captures. The whole idea of the Geneva Convention is that in a war, if you treat our people right, we'll treat yours right. During the last half of the last century, it's never worked out that way. > We had this issue come up on Angel a couple of weeks ago. Wesley tortured > someone for information vital to protecting vast numbers of the public from > Angelus. This goes farther than the debate in the US as she was not suspected > of being on "the other side", she was just a bystander. Was Wes right to > torture her, or was Faith right that he went too far? > > The issue of "desperate measures in desperate times: comes up on BtVS too. Is > Giles-Like-Guy right to assassinate Spike if he perceives him as a threat to > the world (read "national security")? Is Buffy right to protect a dangerous > Spike out of 1) love or 2) because he's necessary to the war...better to risk > a few people's lives now than six billion later, or 3) love and because he's > necessary to the world? Is Buffy right to decide she would kill Dawn if she > had to, and does she mean it? If she does, can Shannon guest star in the ep > and help Buffy do the deed? > > Buffy says you can't fight evil by doing evil. Is she right? Depends. In any fight, neither side has any moral obligation to follow any restriction not followed by or enforced against the other. If evil follows no restriction, then it's open season on evil. > Can you even say that there are any steps that can be taken to fight evil > that can be called evil? If a method is used to fight evil can't it be > argued that method is not evil, no matter how unpleasant it is? Is it indeed > evil, but necessary? Or is there never an excuse to use evil means to fight > and if so, what do we expect to be the consequences of giving up evil means > to an end? The the means employed are measured, not just by how it works against a specific evil, but also against the totality of what we wish to accomplish. > Of course, these issues are debated every day right now re the USA > bombing Iraq, the reason given that it's necessary for national security. > How many American and Iraqi lives is the USA and her allies to sacrifice? > 10? 100? 1,000? 100,000? Is there a line and if so, where do you draw it? Whatever it takes. > Does fighting evil necessitate evil means... No. To say that certain means are evil is to say such means should be the sole prerogative of evil, to give evil an advantage. > ...and if so, does that mean fighting evil will probably make you hard, > callous, amoral or evil yourself? [Wes, maybe Cordelia, Angel sometimes, > Willow, Buffy sometimes.] One should be as hard and callous as necessary, but that can be done without having to be hard and callous all the time.

2003-03-28 23:12:51+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > "Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > news:20030326152259.01169.00000243@mb-fh.aol.com... >> So many issues involving warfare and torture seem to be ringing true right > now. >> >> The issue of torture has come up in the USA... The USA supposedly doesn't > allow >> torture, but does engage in torture-like tactics and sends some suspected >> terrorists to other countries to be tortured in order to extract > information. >> There is a debate as to whether this is hypocritical, whether it goes > against >> everything the USA stands for, or whether desperate times call for > desperate >> measures ergo it's justified. Even if it is justified, does it endanger > the >> USA's own prisoners of war if the USA doesn't follow the spirit (even if > it >> does follow the letter) of the Geneva Convention? >> > Actually, I was thinking about the Iraqi soldiers dressed as civilians and > ambushing U.S. soldiers. Dirty tactics, certainly. (I love the way How do you know they are soldiers and not militiamen? Of course it would be rather embarrassing to admit that trained soldiers could be ambushed by a group of pissed off civilians. > Donald Rumsfeld wrinkles his nose in disgust at that sort of thing. I'm > going to miss that, and only that, once I've sent him on to another > dimension.) But you can bet your sweet bippy that if Iraqi soldiers were > storming the streets of my hometown I'd be engaged in every dirty tactic What would be your priority a military uniform or a gun? > there is and then some. Desperate times do call for desperate measures. > In fact, the British had many uncomplimentary things to say about the way we > Americans engaged in battle during the Revolution. Citizens in glass Plenty of fighters on civilian clothes then... > houses...... >> We had this issue come up on Angel a couple of weeks ago. Wesley tortured >> someone for information vital to protecting vast numbers of the public > from >> Angelus. This goes farther than the debate in the US as she was not > suspected >> of being on "the other side", she was just a bystander. Was Wes right to >> torture her, or was Faith right that he went too far? >> > I think Faith was right. Wesley had no business torturing a human like > that. For one thing he had no good evidence that she actually even knew > anything. He was torturing her on the off chance that she did. And the > information she was able to provide wasn't anything that Faith and Wesley > couldn't have uncovered on their own without resorting to torture. The idea appears to be to show how both characters have changed. Though Faith probably wasn't adverse to beating up a few more demons.

2003-03-28 23:12:51+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: > "Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > news:20030326152259.01169.00000243@mb-fh.aol.com... >> So many issues involving warfare and torture seem to be ringing true right > now. >> >> The issue of torture has come up in the USA... The USA supposedly doesn't > allow >> torture, but does engage in torture-like tactics and sends some suspected >> terrorists to other countries to be tortured in order to extract > information. >> There is a debate as to whether this is hypocritical, whether it goes > against >> everything the USA stands for, or whether desperate times call for > desperate >> measures ergo it's justified. Even if it is justified, does it endanger > the >> USA's own prisoners of war if the USA doesn't follow the spirit (even if > it >> does follow the letter) of the Geneva Convention? >> > Actually, I was thinking about the Iraqi soldiers dressed as civilians and > ambushing U.S. soldiers. Dirty tactics, certainly. (I love the way How do you know they are soldiers and not militiamen? Of course it would be rather embarrassing to admit that trained soldiers could be ambushed by a group of pissed off civilians. > Donald Rumsfeld wrinkles his nose in disgust at that sort of thing. I'm > going to miss that, and only that, once I've sent him on to another > dimension.) But you can bet your sweet bippy that if Iraqi soldiers were > storming the streets of my hometown I'd be engaged in every dirty tactic What would be your priority a military uniform or a gun? > there is and then some. Desperate times do call for desperate measures. > In fact, the British had many uncomplimentary things to say about the way we > Americans engaged in battle during the Revolution. Citizens in glass Plenty of fighters on civilian clothes then... > houses...... >> We had this issue come up on Angel a couple of weeks ago. Wesley tortured >> someone for information vital to protecting vast numbers of the public > from >> Angelus. This goes farther than the debate in the US as she was not > suspected >> of being on "the other side", she was just a bystander. Was Wes right to >> torture her, or was Faith right that he went too far? >> > I think Faith was right. Wesley had no business torturing a human like > that. For one thing he had no good evidence that she actually even knew > anything. He was torturing her on the off chance that she did. And the > information she was able to provide wasn't anything that Faith and Wesley > couldn't have uncovered on their own without resorting to torture. The idea appears to be to show how both characters have changed. Though Faith probably wasn't adverse to beating up a few more demons.

2003-03-28 23:27:52+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:27:21 -0500, "DarkMagic" > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: >>> The problem I have with the death penalty has nothing to do with its >>> level of evil, it has to do with the fact that its never applied >>> fairly. Even in the USA most of the people on death row are poor and >>> black. >>> >>Which is why I believe it's evil. If there was never any doubt regarding a >>persons guilt it wouldn't be evil, it would be justice. > I think capital punishment is simple revenge. It has nothing to do > with justice, or deterrence or any of the other justifications people > have for it. And I think revenge makes us all criminal, just like > Anya's former job, just like Wood going after spike. And it puts the With both Anya's clients and Wood they tended to wind up getting hurt. > USA in the same group as countries like Iran. Can that really be a > good thing? Iran??? >>> And really I don't think the courts or the government should have that >>> kind of power, normal people are just too vulnerable. Some people >>> should just never be allowed out of prison. >>> >>Which ones? > The ones impartial judges, juries say should never get out. Its an The tricky bit is getting hold of those who are impartial enough. >>In any case, with today's modern media >>coverage it has become much more difficult, if not impossible, for a >>government to get away with waging an unfair or unjust war. > Actually that was true in the vietnam war, before the government got > media savvy. > Tell me, how many afgan fighters or civilians were killed? What > happend to the POWs the US captured? > The media is as hogtied now as it was in World War 2. Very little real > information gets out. Otherwise you would be seeing maimed Iraqi Or if it does get out the source might not stick around for long, e.g. the Al Jazerra websites. > children by now. Its unavoidable with all the hardware flying around > over there. The US military is keeping things pretty tightly > controlled. They know how bad publicity would kill support back home. > CNN for example, is basically a government mouthpiece on this What do you expect with an "in bed" reporter :) > labeled anti-american or peacenik. Its actually pretty scary, the If they are actually in the war zone they might simply have an "accident". > patriot act is as well. I'm half expecting Dubya to create a ministry > of peace. Just one of "peace" what about one of "truth" and one of "love". Anyway "patriot act" is the modern version of doublethink.

2003-03-28 23:27:52+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:27:21 -0500, "DarkMagic" > <slnospambilan@comcast.net> wrote: >>> The problem I have with the death penalty has nothing to do with its >>> level of evil, it has to do with the fact that its never applied >>> fairly. Even in the USA most of the people on death row are poor and >>> black. >>> >>Which is why I believe it's evil. If there was never any doubt regarding a >>persons guilt it wouldn't be evil, it would be justice. > I think capital punishment is simple revenge. It has nothing to do > with justice, or deterrence or any of the other justifications people > have for it. And I think revenge makes us all criminal, just like > Anya's former job, just like Wood going after spike. And it puts the With both Anya's clients and Wood they tended to wind up getting hurt. > USA in the same group as countries like Iran. Can that really be a > good thing? Iran??? >>> And really I don't think the courts or the government should have that >>> kind of power, normal people are just too vulnerable. Some people >>> should just never be allowed out of prison. >>> >>Which ones? > The ones impartial judges, juries say should never get out. Its an The tricky bit is getting hold of those who are impartial enough. >>In any case, with today's modern media >>coverage it has become much more difficult, if not impossible, for a >>government to get away with waging an unfair or unjust war. > Actually that was true in the vietnam war, before the government got > media savvy. > Tell me, how many afgan fighters or civilians were killed? What > happend to the POWs the US captured? > The media is as hogtied now as it was in World War 2. Very little real > information gets out. Otherwise you would be seeing maimed Iraqi Or if it does get out the source might not stick around for long, e.g. the Al Jazerra websites. > children by now. Its unavoidable with all the hardware flying around > over there. The US military is keeping things pretty tightly > controlled. They know how bad publicity would kill support back home. > CNN for example, is basically a government mouthpiece on this What do you expect with an "in bed" reporter :) > labeled anti-american or peacenik. Its actually pretty scary, the If they are actually in the war zone they might simply have an "accident". > patriot act is as well. I'm half expecting Dubya to create a ministry > of peace. Just one of "peace" what about one of "truth" and one of "love". Anyway "patriot act" is the modern version of doublethink.

2003-03-29 21:52:16-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <b65aa5$epd$3@blue.rahul.net>, arromdee@violet.rahul.net says... > As for the Iraqis, we're trying to kill as few innocents as possible. I'd > say that whatever the exact limit is, we're well under it. If you just figure > out how many innocent people die from sanctions alone--or even if you just > figure out how many people are killed by Saddam Hussein--you get a number a > lot larger than the number of innocent people killed in the war. I think we can claim to be behaving ethically in a war where we're killing less civilians on accident than the other side is on purpose.

2003-03-29 21:52:16-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <b65aa5$epd$3@blue.rahul.net>, arromdee@violet.rahul.net says... > As for the Iraqis, we're trying to kill as few innocents as possible. I'd > say that whatever the exact limit is, we're well under it. If you just figure > out how many innocent people die from sanctions alone--or even if you just > figure out how many people are killed by Saddam Hussein--you get a number a > lot larger than the number of innocent people killed in the war. I think we can claim to be behaving ethically in a war where we're killing less civilians on accident than the other side is on purpose.

2003-03-30 00:15:04-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <3e864020.348626223@news.telusplanet.net>, rgorman@telusplanet.net says... > On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:49:50 +0000 (UTC), arromdee@violet.rahul.net > (Ken Arromdee) wrote: > > > > > >Who else is there? Not the police or courts, for sure. > > > >There is no higher authority, in the Buffyverse, when it comes to fighting > >the supernatural. You could argue that Warren used a regular gun, so the > >courts could get him, but the police could never *catch* him, > > Sure they could. Sunnydale police might have had a lower than average > chance of catching him, but Willow could have turned him over to the > cops, except for the, you know, being crazy part. But even if Willow > had decided not to track him down, the cops would have had a chance > about as high of catching him as they have of catching any other armed > and stupid murderer. Some people have argued that they might catch his robot, but it's not like a robot can charge in a jail cell. They'd figure it out after a day or so. > and if he > >does go to court there is too much that both the prosecution and the defense > >would be ignorant of to make the trial anything but a farce. > > Now, that's not true. He shot Buffy and in the process accidentally > killed whatsername. His previous antics with invisibility rays and > robot girlfriends, while colourful, are not relevant to the actual > case for either defense or prosecution. And the Scoobies can prove the robot girlfriend bit. I mean, the robot Warren didn't just vanish into thin air. And they probably collected April as she set on the swings. They couldn't get Warren for assault with the invisibility ray (actually, that was an accident, wasn't it?) and certainly not for the first bank robbery with the demon, and maybe not for the diamond heist. But the police were probably already looking for him with for the second bank robbery, and they *know* Buffy foiled that, and they have several witnesses for that, etc. They'd find the store he bought the gun at, they have a perfectly good motive for him attempting to kill Buffy, they have an eyewitness who saw him shoot her, they have a pretty airtight case for a bank robbery, an attempted murder, and a felony murder. Of course, nothing in this post should be construed to say that he'd remain in jail, but if he *was* caught, he'd be convicted. And everyone who says 'He'd just magic his way out' would need to explain why neither Andrew nor Jonathan magicked their way out. I mean, they are the ones with the magic. It's possible to see Warren pulling some sort of McGyver stunt to break out, but that's really up to the writers. Warren's never been written as the most clever guy in the world, he's just about ten years technologically advanced in relation to the rest of the world.

2003-03-30 00:15:04-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <3e864020.348626223@news.telusplanet.net>, rgorman@telusplanet.net says... > On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:49:50 +0000 (UTC), arromdee@violet.rahul.net > (Ken Arromdee) wrote: > > > > > >Who else is there? Not the police or courts, for sure. > > > >There is no higher authority, in the Buffyverse, when it comes to fighting > >the supernatural. You could argue that Warren used a regular gun, so the > >courts could get him, but the police could never *catch* him, > > Sure they could. Sunnydale police might have had a lower than average > chance of catching him, but Willow could have turned him over to the > cops, except for the, you know, being crazy part. But even if Willow > had decided not to track him down, the cops would have had a chance > about as high of catching him as they have of catching any other armed > and stupid murderer. Some people have argued that they might catch his robot, but it's not like a robot can charge in a jail cell. They'd figure it out after a day or so. > and if he > >does go to court there is too much that both the prosecution and the defense > >would be ignorant of to make the trial anything but a farce. > > Now, that's not true. He shot Buffy and in the process accidentally > killed whatsername. His previous antics with invisibility rays and > robot girlfriends, while colourful, are not relevant to the actual > case for either defense or prosecution. And the Scoobies can prove the robot girlfriend bit. I mean, the robot Warren didn't just vanish into thin air. And they probably collected April as she set on the swings. They couldn't get Warren for assault with the invisibility ray (actually, that was an accident, wasn't it?) and certainly not for the first bank robbery with the demon, and maybe not for the diamond heist. But the police were probably already looking for him with for the second bank robbery, and they *know* Buffy foiled that, and they have several witnesses for that, etc. They'd find the store he bought the gun at, they have a perfectly good motive for him attempting to kill Buffy, they have an eyewitness who saw him shoot her, they have a pretty airtight case for a bank robbery, an attempted murder, and a felony murder. Of course, nothing in this post should be construed to say that he'd remain in jail, but if he *was* caught, he'd be convicted. And everyone who says 'He'd just magic his way out' would need to explain why neither Andrew nor Jonathan magicked their way out. I mean, they are the ones with the magic. It's possible to see Warren pulling some sort of McGyver stunt to break out, but that's really up to the writers. Warren's never been written as the most clever guy in the world, he's just about ten years technologically advanced in relation to the rest of the world.

2003-03-30 00:15:30-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <UymdnfCQB-GLKx6jXTWcpg@comcast.com>, slnospambilan@comcast.net says... > > > "Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > news:20030327211200.24173.00000012@mb-ck.aol.com... > > Shannon wrote: > > > > > > > >I don't know, Willow didn't seem so much a victim when she ripped the > flesh > > >off of Warren's body as she did an avenging goddess. However, I do draw > the > > >line at her wanting to slaughter Jonathon and Andrew, torturing Giles, > and > > >trying to end the world. > > >> > > > > > > > Killing Warren started her on the slippery slope. She went from a > justified > > desire for vengeance, to extending that to his friends, to extending that > to > > her drug dealer who had nothing to do with Tara's death and didn't exactly > > force Willow at gunpoint to buy his wares, to extending that to anyone who > > tried to stop her. > > I know, I know. That darn slippery slope gets us evil people every time! ;) > Are you, in effect, saying then that if I succeed in sending Donald Rumsfeld > and Dawn into another dimension that any Joss, Marti, or Jane who displeases > me might go in next? Also, they'll make a Twilight Zone episode about you. Or maybe even two.

2003-03-30 00:15:30-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <UymdnfCQB-GLKx6jXTWcpg@comcast.com>, slnospambilan@comcast.net says... > > > "Rose" <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote in message > news:20030327211200.24173.00000012@mb-ck.aol.com... > > Shannon wrote: > > > > > > > >I don't know, Willow didn't seem so much a victim when she ripped the > flesh > > >off of Warren's body as she did an avenging goddess. However, I do draw > the > > >line at her wanting to slaughter Jonathon and Andrew, torturing Giles, > and > > >trying to end the world. > > >> > > > > > > > Killing Warren started her on the slippery slope. She went from a > justified > > desire for vengeance, to extending that to his friends, to extending that > to > > her drug dealer who had nothing to do with Tara's death and didn't exactly > > force Willow at gunpoint to buy his wares, to extending that to anyone who > > tried to stop her. > > I know, I know. That darn slippery slope gets us evil people every time! ;) > Are you, in effect, saying then that if I succeed in sending Donald Rumsfeld > and Dawn into another dimension that any Joss, Marti, or Jane who displeases > me might go in next? Also, they'll make a Twilight Zone episode about you. Or maybe even two.

2003-03-30 00:51:26+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:49:50 +0000 (UTC), arromdee@violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote: > >Who else is there? Not the police or courts, for sure. > >There is no higher authority, in the Buffyverse, when it comes to fighting >the supernatural. You could argue that Warren used a regular gun, so the >courts could get him, but the police could never *catch* him, Sure they could. Sunnydale police might have had a lower than average chance of catching him, but Willow could have turned him over to the cops, except for the, you know, being crazy part. But even if Willow had decided not to track him down, the cops would have had a chance about as high of catching him as they have of catching any other armed and stupid murderer. and if he >does go to court there is too much that both the prosecution and the defense >would be ignorant of to make the trial anything but a farce. Now, that's not true. He shot Buffy and in the process accidentally killed whatsername. His previous antics with invisibility rays and robot girlfriends, while colourful, are not relevant to the actual case for either defense or prosecution.

2003-03-30 00:51:26+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:49:50 +0000 (UTC), arromdee@violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote: > >Who else is there? Not the police or courts, for sure. > >There is no higher authority, in the Buffyverse, when it comes to fighting >the supernatural. You could argue that Warren used a regular gun, so the >courts could get him, but the police could never *catch* him, Sure they could. Sunnydale police might have had a lower than average chance of catching him, but Willow could have turned him over to the cops, except for the, you know, being crazy part. But even if Willow had decided not to track him down, the cops would have had a chance about as high of catching him as they have of catching any other armed and stupid murderer. and if he >does go to court there is too much that both the prosecution and the defense >would be ignorant of to make the trial anything but a farce. Now, that's not true. He shot Buffy and in the process accidentally killed whatsername. His previous antics with invisibility rays and robot girlfriends, while colourful, are not relevant to the actual case for either defense or prosecution.

2003-03-30 10:54:00-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <b66217$n0h$5@blue.rahul.net>, arromdee@violet.rahul.net says... > In article <MPG.18f04743748ff3cf989765@news.direcpc.com>, > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > >And the Scoobies can prove the robot girlfriend bit. > > Logically, they can, but the show is illogical in such matters. > > Sure, they can prove the existence of robots to the police. But they could > prove the existence of vampires, too. Just get Spike and a mirror. They > could prove the existence of magic. But for some reason, they don't, and > we're supposed to assume that they really can't, for some completely > unexplained reason. I think we're supposed to assume that the idea of vampires is so crazy they'd just be ignored. But walking talking robot aren't so immediately crazy. Like I said, ten years or so and we'll have them. It's not automatically impossible. There are people out there who probably think we could build one today, and about the only reason we *can't* is we don't have a fast enough CPU that's small enough. (Although there are plenty of practical reasons we can't build one right now *for a reasonable amount of money*. Give me several billion dollars and a CPU from the future and I could get one built for you, although I don't know about the fake skin part of it.) And the easy thing would be to take it to the media, not to the police. Walk a bot in and have it take its head off, see how the media reacts. The not telling people about the vampire things is the weakest part of the premise, as vampires rely on not being known about. To bring up another show with the same problem, Charmed has the interesting idea that if you run around blabbing about the supernatural and proving it to people, evil just out and out assassinates you as soon as possible. Not to mention that people have been shown to be less vulnerable to evil and the supernatural if they don't have the slightest idea it exists. For example, you can't take a witch's power if she doesn't know she's a witch, and in fact it's hard to even locate them. (Except for whitelighters, but they have special knowledge.)

2003-03-30 10:54:00-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <b66217$n0h$5@blue.rahul.net>, arromdee@violet.rahul.net says... > In article <MPG.18f04743748ff3cf989765@news.direcpc.com>, > David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> wrote: > >And the Scoobies can prove the robot girlfriend bit. > > Logically, they can, but the show is illogical in such matters. > > Sure, they can prove the existence of robots to the police. But they could > prove the existence of vampires, too. Just get Spike and a mirror. They > could prove the existence of magic. But for some reason, they don't, and > we're supposed to assume that they really can't, for some completely > unexplained reason. I think we're supposed to assume that the idea of vampires is so crazy they'd just be ignored. But walking talking robot aren't so immediately crazy. Like I said, ten years or so and we'll have them. It's not automatically impossible. There are people out there who probably think we could build one today, and about the only reason we *can't* is we don't have a fast enough CPU that's small enough. (Although there are plenty of practical reasons we can't build one right now *for a reasonable amount of money*. Give me several billion dollars and a CPU from the future and I could get one built for you, although I don't know about the fake skin part of it.) And the easy thing would be to take it to the media, not to the police. Walk a bot in and have it take its head off, see how the media reacts. The not telling people about the vampire things is the weakest part of the premise, as vampires rely on not being known about. To bring up another show with the same problem, Charmed has the interesting idea that if you run around blabbing about the supernatural and proving it to people, evil just out and out assassinates you as soon as possible. Not to mention that people have been shown to be less vulnerable to evil and the supernatural if they don't have the slightest idea it exists. For example, you can't take a witch's power if she doesn't know she's a witch, and in fact it's hard to even locate them. (Except for whitelighters, but they have special knowledge.)

2003-03-30 12:07:54-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <20030330111119.28690.00000140@mb-fv.aol.com>, fylmfan@aol.comspam says... > >Subject: Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War > >From: arromdee@violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) > >Date: 3/29/2003 10:11 PM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <b661qj$n0h$4@blue.rahul.net> > > > >In article <3e864020.348626223@news.telusplanet.net>, > >David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote: > >>and if he > >>>does go to court there is too much that both the prosecution and the > >defense > >>>would be ignorant of to make the trial anything but a farce. > >>Now, that's not true. He shot Buffy and in the process accidentally > >>killed whatsername. His previous antics with invisibility rays and > >>robot girlfriends, while colourful, are not relevant to the actual > >>case for either defense or prosecution. > > > >Well, there are some defenses he could use that would involve the > >supernatural, like claiming he was afraid Buffy was going to kill him first, > >something much less believable if the judge doesn't know she is superpowered. > > > >Also, even if he's found guilty, he couldn't be put in jail. Not if the > >judge doesn't know about magic and mad science. > >-- > > I'm sure a witch powerful enough to raise the dead could do something to > nullify Warren's power so he could stay in prison until his sentence is up or > he gets the death penalty. Warren doesn't actually have any magical power. We've seen him use magical items, like the stones, but presumably everyone could do that. And we've seen him cast a purchased spell before, but, hell, Xander has cast spells, that doesn't make him a manwitch. The fact Warren went running to Rack implies he doesn't have much abilities of his own, and from what other stuff we've seen he doesn't have *any* abilities of his own. Warren is a unethical schemer and is about a decade, maybe two, advanced technologically. But he can't teleport out of jail cell, he can't fly without a jet pack, he can't bend steel with his bare hands without magic balls, etc. Hell, he's not even a hacker, we've never even seen him do anything with a computer besides run a scanning device and watch surveillance videos. Stick him in jail cell and he'd basically be stuck in there. Yes, there are more precaution to take with Warren than with other criminals, but anyone claiming he'd just walk right out of prison is just silly. Now, Warren could easily break someone *out* of prison, from the outside...but we have no indication there's another Warren-type guy out there who would have been willing to do that.

2003-03-30 12:07:54-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


In article <20030330111119.28690.00000140@mb-fv.aol.com>, fylmfan@aol.comspam says... > >Subject: Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War > >From: arromdee@violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) > >Date: 3/29/2003 10:11 PM Pacific Standard Time > >Message-id: <b661qj$n0h$4@blue.rahul.net> > > > >In article <3e864020.348626223@news.telusplanet.net>, > >David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote: > >>and if he > >>>does go to court there is too much that both the prosecution and the > >defense > >>>would be ignorant of to make the trial anything but a farce. > >>Now, that's not true. He shot Buffy and in the process accidentally > >>killed whatsername. His previous antics with invisibility rays and > >>robot girlfriends, while colourful, are not relevant to the actual > >>case for either defense or prosecution. > > > >Well, there are some defenses he could use that would involve the > >supernatural, like claiming he was afraid Buffy was going to kill him first, > >something much less believable if the judge doesn't know she is superpowered. > > > >Also, even if he's found guilty, he couldn't be put in jail. Not if the > >judge doesn't know about magic and mad science. > >-- > > I'm sure a witch powerful enough to raise the dead could do something to > nullify Warren's power so he could stay in prison until his sentence is up or > he gets the death penalty. Warren doesn't actually have any magical power. We've seen him use magical items, like the stones, but presumably everyone could do that. And we've seen him cast a purchased spell before, but, hell, Xander has cast spells, that doesn't make him a manwitch. The fact Warren went running to Rack implies he doesn't have much abilities of his own, and from what other stuff we've seen he doesn't have *any* abilities of his own. Warren is a unethical schemer and is about a decade, maybe two, advanced technologically. But he can't teleport out of jail cell, he can't fly without a jet pack, he can't bend steel with his bare hands without magic balls, etc. Hell, he's not even a hacker, we've never even seen him do anything with a computer besides run a scanning device and watch surveillance videos. Stick him in jail cell and he'd basically be stuck in there. Yes, there are more precaution to take with Warren than with other criminals, but anyone claiming he'd just walk right out of prison is just silly. Now, Warren could easily break someone *out* of prison, from the outside...but we have no indication there's another Warren-type guy out there who would have been willing to do that.

2003-03-30 14:03:49+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (dsueme@core.com)


On 26 Mar 2003 20:22:59 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: Whatever has happened with Rose? This actually makes sense. No, actually, it doesn't make sense - but not her fault. She is raising important questions. This is the interstice between being a Kantian "rational being" and a Darwinian "alive being". How can you be even imperfectly rational if you are dead? "Soul". I don't want to get in that argument. >So many issues involving warfare and torture seem to be ringing true right now. > >The issue of torture has come up in the USA... The USA supposedly doesn't allow >torture, but does engage in torture-like tactics and sends some suspected >terrorists to other countries to be tortured in order to extract information. >There is a debate as to whether this is hypocritical, whether it goes against >everything the USA stands for, or whether desperate times call for desperate >measures ergo it's justified. Even if it is justified, does it endanger the >USA's own prisoners of war if the USA doesn't follow the spirit (even if it >does follow the letter) of the Geneva Convention? > >We had this issue come up on Angel a couple of weeks ago. Wesley tortured >someone for information vital to protecting vast numbers of the public from >Angelus. This goes farther than the debate in the US as she was not suspected >of being on "the other side", she was just a bystander. Was Wes right to >torture her, or was Faith right that he went too far? > >The issue of "desperate measures in desperate times: comes up on BtVS too. Is >Giles-Like-Guy right to assassinate Spike if he perceives him as a threat to >the world (read "national security")? Is Buffy right to protect a dangerous >Spike out of 1) love or 2) because he's necessary to the war...better to risk a >few people's lives now than six billion later, or 3) love and because he's >necessary to the world? Is Buffy right to decide she would kill Dawn if she >had to, and does she mean it? If she does, can Shannon guest star in the ep >and help Buffy do the deed? > >Buffy says you can't fight evil by doing evil. Is she right? Can you even say >that there are any steps that can be taken to fight evil that can be called >evil? If a method is used to fight evil can't it be argued that method is not >evil, no matter how unpleasant it is? Is it indeed evil, but necessary? Or is >there never an excuse to use evil means to fight and if so, what do we expect >to be the consequences of giving up evil means to an end? Of course, these >issues are debated every day right now re the USA bombing Iraq, the reason >given that it's necessary for national security. How many American and Iraqi >lives is the USA and her allies to sacrifice? 10? 100? 1,000? 100,000? Is >there a line and if so, where do you draw it? > >Does fighting evil necessitate evil means and if so, does that mean fighting >evil will probably make you hard, callous, amoral or evil yourself? [Wes, >maybe Cordelia, Angel sometimes, Willow, Buffy sometimes.] > > > > > > > > > > >Rose >"No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne >Girls have human rights, too > > When the Prime Minister spoke yesterday I thought to myself, "I hope I'll be able to give a speech like that when I grow up" - Bill Clinton, October 2, 2002 http://my.core.com/~dsueme/power%20lines%20mail.JPG

2003-03-30 14:03:49+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (dsueme@core.com)


On 26 Mar 2003 20:22:59 GMT, fylmfan@aol.comspam (Rose) wrote: Whatever has happened with Rose? This actually makes sense. No, actually, it doesn't make sense - but not her fault. She is raising important questions. This is the interstice between being a Kantian "rational being" and a Darwinian "alive being". How can you be even imperfectly rational if you are dead? "Soul". I don't want to get in that argument. >So many issues involving warfare and torture seem to be ringing true right now. > >The issue of torture has come up in the USA... The USA supposedly doesn't allow >torture, but does engage in torture-like tactics and sends some suspected >terrorists to other countries to be tortured in order to extract information. >There is a debate as to whether this is hypocritical, whether it goes against >everything the USA stands for, or whether desperate times call for desperate >measures ergo it's justified. Even if it is justified, does it endanger the >USA's own prisoners of war if the USA doesn't follow the spirit (even if it >does follow the letter) of the Geneva Convention? > >We had this issue come up on Angel a couple of weeks ago. Wesley tortured >someone for information vital to protecting vast numbers of the public from >Angelus. This goes farther than the debate in the US as she was not suspected >of being on "the other side", she was just a bystander. Was Wes right to >torture her, or was Faith right that he went too far? > >The issue of "desperate measures in desperate times: comes up on BtVS too. Is >Giles-Like-Guy right to assassinate Spike if he perceives him as a threat to >the world (read "national security")? Is Buffy right to protect a dangerous >Spike out of 1) love or 2) because he's necessary to the war...better to risk a >few people's lives now than six billion later, or 3) love and because he's >necessary to the world? Is Buffy right to decide she would kill Dawn if she >had to, and does she mean it? If she does, can Shannon guest star in the ep >and help Buffy do the deed? > >Buffy says you can't fight evil by doing evil. Is she right? Can you even say >that there are any steps that can be taken to fight evil that can be called >evil? If a method is used to fight evil can't it be argued that method is not >evil, no matter how unpleasant it is? Is it indeed evil, but necessary? Or is >there never an excuse to use evil means to fight and if so, what do we expect >to be the consequences of giving up evil means to an end? Of course, these >issues are debated every day right now re the USA bombing Iraq, the reason >given that it's necessary for national security. How many American and Iraqi >lives is the USA and her allies to sacrifice? 10? 100? 1,000? 100,000? Is >there a line and if so, where do you draw it? > >Does fighting evil necessitate evil means and if so, does that mean fighting >evil will probably make you hard, callous, amoral or evil yourself? [Wes, >maybe Cordelia, Angel sometimes, Willow, Buffy sometimes.] > > > > > > > > > > >Rose >"No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne >Girls have human rights, too > > When the Prime Minister spoke yesterday I thought to myself, "I hope I'll be able to give a speech like that when I grow up" - Bill Clinton, October 2, 2002 http://my.core.com/~dsueme/power%20lines%20mail.JPG

2003-03-30 16:11:19+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War >From: arromdee@violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) >Date: 3/29/2003 10:11 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <b661qj$n0h$4@blue.rahul.net> > >In article <3e864020.348626223@news.telusplanet.net>, >David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote: >>and if he >>>does go to court there is too much that both the prosecution and the >defense >>>would be ignorant of to make the trial anything but a farce. >>Now, that's not true. He shot Buffy and in the process accidentally >>killed whatsername. His previous antics with invisibility rays and >>robot girlfriends, while colourful, are not relevant to the actual >>case for either defense or prosecution. > >Well, there are some defenses he could use that would involve the >supernatural, like claiming he was afraid Buffy was going to kill him first, >something much less believable if the judge doesn't know she is superpowered. > >Also, even if he's found guilty, he couldn't be put in jail. Not if the >judge doesn't know about magic and mad science. >-- I'm sure a witch powerful enough to raise the dead could do something to nullify Warren's power so he could stay in prison until his sentence is up or he gets the death penalty. > Ken Arromdee / arromdee@rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee > >"There are some corners of the universe that have bred the most terrible >things, things which act against everything that we believe in. They must be >fought." --Dr. Who, "The Moonbase" > > > > > > Rose "No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne Girls have human rights, too

2003-03-30 16:11:19+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War >From: arromdee@violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) >Date: 3/29/2003 10:11 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <b661qj$n0h$4@blue.rahul.net> > >In article <3e864020.348626223@news.telusplanet.net>, >David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote: >>and if he >>>does go to court there is too much that both the prosecution and the >defense >>>would be ignorant of to make the trial anything but a farce. >>Now, that's not true. He shot Buffy and in the process accidentally >>killed whatsername. His previous antics with invisibility rays and >>robot girlfriends, while colourful, are not relevant to the actual >>case for either defense or prosecution. > >Well, there are some defenses he could use that would involve the >supernatural, like claiming he was afraid Buffy was going to kill him first, >something much less believable if the judge doesn't know she is superpowered. > >Also, even if he's found guilty, he couldn't be put in jail. Not if the >judge doesn't know about magic and mad science. >-- I'm sure a witch powerful enough to raise the dead could do something to nullify Warren's power so he could stay in prison until his sentence is up or he gets the death penalty. > Ken Arromdee / arromdee@rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee > >"There are some corners of the universe that have bred the most terrible >things, things which act against everything that we believe in. They must be >fought." --Dr. Who, "The Moonbase" > > > > > > Rose "No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne Girls have human rights, too

2003-03-30 17:59:05+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War >From: arromdee@violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) >Date: 3/30/2003 9:45 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <b67agh$vk4$1@blue.rahul.net> > >In article <20030330111119.28690.00000140@mb-fv.aol.com>, >Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: >>I'm sure a witch powerful enough to raise the dead could do something to >>nullify Warren's power so he could stay in prison until his sentence is up >or >>he gets the death penalty. > >She couldn't do it before. Why can she do it now? >-- Well...she's absorbed all that black magic that makes her uber-powerful. Rose "No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne Girls have human rights, too

2003-03-30 17:59:05+00:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (fylmfan@aol.comspam)


>Subject: Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War >From: arromdee@violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) >Date: 3/30/2003 9:45 AM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <b67agh$vk4$1@blue.rahul.net> > >In article <20030330111119.28690.00000140@mb-fv.aol.com>, >Rose <fylmfan@aol.comspam> wrote: >>I'm sure a witch powerful enough to raise the dead could do something to >>nullify Warren's power so he could stay in prison until his sentence is up >or >>he gets the death penalty. > >She couldn't do it before. Why can she do it now? >-- Well...she's absorbed all that black magic that makes her uber-powerful. Rose "No man is an island, entire of itself." -- John Donne Girls have human rights, too

2003-03-31 00:57:02-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b661qj$n0h$4@blue.rahul.net>, arromdee@violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote: >David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote: >>and if he >>>does go to court there is too much that both the prosecution and the defense >>>would be ignorant of to make the trial anything but a farce. >>Now, that's not true. He shot Buffy and in the process accidentally >>killed whatsername. His previous antics with invisibility rays and >>robot girlfriends, while colourful, are not relevant to the actual >>case for either defense or prosecution. >Well, there are some defenses he could use that would involve the >supernatural, like claiming he was afraid Buffy was going to kill him first, >something much less believable if the judge doesn't know she is superpowered. >Also, even if he's found guilty, he couldn't be put in jail. Not if the >judge doesn't know about magic and mad science. Why not? He has no special powers, and as far as I know they generally strip search you when they put you in prison, so it's not as if he could use some sort of device to get out. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-03-31 00:57:02-05:00 - Re: Buffy, Angel, Torture and War - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <b661qj$n0h$4@blue.rahul.net>, arromdee@violet.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote: >David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote: >>and if he >>>does go to court there is too much that both the prosecution and the defense >>>would be ignorant of to make the trial anything but a farce. >>Now, that's not true. He shot Buffy and in the process accidentally >>killed whatsername. His previous antics with invisibility rays and >>robot girlfriends, while colourful, are not relevant to the actual >>case for either defense or prosecution. >Well, there are some defenses he could use that would involve the >supernatural, like claiming he was afraid Buffy was going to kill him first, >something much less believable if the judge doesn't know she is superpowered. >Also, even if he's found guilty, he couldn't be put in jail. Not if the >judge doesn't know about magic and mad science. Why not? He has no special powers, and as far as I know they generally strip search you when they put you in prison, so it's not as if he could use some sort of device to get out. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu