Laughing at Saddam by Hero

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So many false dilemmas, so little time …
Either you delight in his death or you approve of him!
Either you want revenge him or you idolize him!

I don’t intend to argue these or any of the others. It’s not worth my time.

------------------------------------------------------------------

In the simplest terms possible:

It’s contradictory to define Hussein as evil for using humiliation, torture, fear and death … and then say that you're good for wanting the exact same things done to him.

But you’d rather be obtuse and keep pushing phony arguments. I suspect it’s b/c you think there’s an audience that could be fired up with the right approach, and you’d rather play to them. It doesn’t seem to be working either here or in the larger world.

Oh, btw, how’s that Iraq reconciliation going now that Hussein is dead? http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=26176

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 6, 2007 4:31 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
You don't have to give him respect, or honor - you can even be grateful he's gone. But gloating and being amused by an execution shows a clear lack of moral character.

I have to disagree. I find it a moral imperative to minimize Saddam's death; to make it as inconsequential as possible. I don't think he should be remembered as a martyr, or a figure of domination, or of fear. I'd prefer that he be remembered as a bad joke that went on far too long. Anything else gives him an influence on the world which he doesn't deserve.

Quote:
We're talking about a hanging, and of a world leader at that (regardless of what he did, he was the leader of a country and was at one time, a very powerful figure).

Stalin and Hitler were powerful figures and leaders of their countries too. I'm also glad they're dead, and would have mocked their deaths if I'd been around at the time. If something should happen to Kim Jung Il, I'd mock his death too. I'm not that crazy about the governments in Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Myanmar either, BTW.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 6, 2007 4:48 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It’s contradictory to define Hussein as evil for using humiliation, torture, fear and death … and then say that you're good for wanting the exact same things done to him.

Hardly so. Saddam used HTF&D on innocents, in massive numbers, with no hint of due process, to further his own quest for power. His humiliation and death were a result of legal proceedings in response to his actions against those innocents. As far as I know, no torture was inflicted on him. His fear was fear of just punishment for his crimes.

I make fun of him because I want to marginalize him, to remove his power to cause fear or to have any influence in death. He deserves nothing but what he got, and to be forgotten as quickly as possible.

Edit to add:

Rue, I've stated my position on this pretty clearly, but all you've done is snipe. Do you have any opinion on Saddam's execution, or are you just trolling for responses?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 6, 2007 5:00 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Basically what you're saying is - 'when he did it he was evil b/c I don't credit his reasons; but I'm not evil since my reasons are good.'

I understand your position perfectly. It doesn't mean I agree.

And how's that reconciliation going?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 6, 2007 5:15 PM

Laughing at a being's death is the job of small, frightened minds. Saddam's spirit is released from it's twisted and evil body, and I wish it a better path.

I hope this kills this thread- Browncoats need to not be so vile. Did Mal laugh when he killed anyone? No, cause it's aways a shame.

Atypically serious Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 6, 2007 5:37 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Basically what you're saying is - 'when he did it he was evil b/c I don't credit his reasons; but I'm not evil since my reasons are good.'

I understand your position perfectly. It doesn't mean I agree.

I consider what he did evil because I consider the murder and torture of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children, just so he could maintain his dictatorship by fear, to be evil. This was apparently all right by you. I consider his execution as justice. You apparently disagree.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 6, 2007 5:43 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"just so he could maintain his dictatorship by fear" As I said, you disagreed with his reasons. But you agree with your reasons - "justice" by fear and death. Same game, different decorations.

And it wasn't all right by me, then or now. With you, it's a sometime thing.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 6, 2007 5:47 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Laughing at a being's death is the job of small, frightened minds. Saddam's spirit is released from it's twisted and evil body, and I wish it a better path.

Bullshit! Being a person who believes there is no deity or afterlife or immortal spirit, I have to consider reputation the only thing that survives after a person's death. Rating Saddam on what he did while he was alive, I see no reason for his reputation to be anything other than mockery and jokes.

Quote:
Did Mal laugh when he killed anyone? No, cause it's aways a shame.

Mal had no problem pushing a wounded and helpless man into the port engine of Serenity (The Train Job) because the guy would have eventually been a threat, and for intimidation value. Works for me.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 6, 2007 6:02 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"just so he could maintain his dictatorship by fear" As I said, you disagreed with his reasons. But you agree with your reasons - "justice" by fear and death. Same game, different decorations.

And it wasn't all right by me, then or now. With you, it's a sometime thing.

No, Rue. I disagree with the mass murder of innocent people. I disagree with a thug who would have children tortured and killed as a warning to their parents to toe the line. I disagree with a man who would allow his sons to kidnap young women and rape, brutalize, and murder them with impunity. I disagree with a man who took pleasure in personally executing his political enemies.

You apparently think that the execution of Saddam, after due process, was worse than the crimes he committed. That the guilty should not fear punishment for their crimes. Once again, I have to disagree.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 6, 2007 6:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

What is execution in 'justice ... after due process'? It's a government setting laws and enforcing them by fear of death. Same story, different decoration. It still comes down to rule by fear of death.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 6:00 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What is execution in 'justice ... after due process'? It's a government setting laws and enforcing them by fear of death. Same story, different decoration. It still comes down to rule by fear of death.

So we're attempting to segue from laughing at Saddam to a discussion of the death penalty. Won't work. If he had been killed by a bomb during the early weeks of the war, or in a suicidal charge at Coalition forces, or by a rampaging mob of Sadristas, I'd still mock him and belittle his death.

You've played the troll in the last half of this thread, making accusations and moral pronouncements on other people's points of view without stating your own, failing to respond to questions, and changing the subject when you talk yourself into a corner. Express an opinion, or shut up. Why do I doubt either will occur?

Edited to add:

Quote:
It still comes down to rule by fear of death.

So there's no moral difference in your mind between an elected government saying "We'll punish you if you violate the rights of our citizens, including killing them in great numbers" and a dictator saying "I'll punish you if you don't let my sons rape your daughter".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 6:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Mal had no problem pushing a wounded and helpless man into the port engine of Serenity (The Train Job) because the guy would have eventually been a threat, and for intimidation value. Works for me.

Geezer, you are so wrong on so many levels.
You saw him as wounded and helpless?
Eventually a threat????
He was unable to sucessfully attack AT THE MOMENT.
He controlled his destiny, and HE chose to attempt to intimidate- he wouldn't "eventually become" a threat; he was stating that he was a continuous living threat.

And my biggest sadness for you: "for intimidation value". You truly believe that that was Mal had in mind? That you could read that into the scene is where all of the anger at you comes from, dude.
The joke was that it happened to work out that way. Mal did it to protect his crew, and some part of him was unhappy about his percieved forced decision.

But for you, it was Mal using a man as a tool, killing him to help achieve a desired end- this is the same accepting attitude toward killing that fuels my rage at Neo-Con idiots, and the same thinking that makes an Operative possible.

Your heart ain't workin' Geez, you need to look to that.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 7:26 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
He was unable to sucessfully attack AT THE MOMENT.
He controlled his destiny, and HE chose to attempt to intimidate- he wouldn't "eventually become" a threat; he was stating that he was a continuous living threat.

And my biggest sadness for you: "for intimidation value". You truly believe that that was Mal had in mind? That you could read that into the scene is where all of the anger at you comes from, dude.
The joke was that it happened to work out that way. Mal did it to protect his crew, and some part of him was unhappy about his percieved forced decision.

Cool. You just justified the invasion of Iraq.

To paraphrase:

"Saddam was unable to sucessfully attack AT THE MOMENT. Saddam controlled his destiny, and HE chose to attempt to intimidate- he wouldn't "eventually become" a threat; he was stating that he was a continuous living threat. The joke was that it happened to work out that way. Bush did it to protect his Country, and some part of him was unhappy about his percieved forced decision."

Couldn't have said it better myself.
"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 7:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

To paraphrase:

"Saddam was unable to sucessfully attack AT THE MOMENT. Saddam controlled his destiny, and HE chose to attempt to intimidate- he wouldn't "eventually become" a threat; he was stating that he was a continuous living threat. The joke was that it happened to work out that way. Bush did it to protect his Country, and some part of him was unhappy about his percieved forced decision."

Okay props for being clever. Now to the point....

Saddam was backing down and asking the UN to inspect more; he knew he was gonna get it, and was not being intimidating. At no point did he state that he would kill us all.
Bush did not do it to protect us, you are either drunk or high to say that seriously.

Dig it deeper, man. You're losing whatever ground you had. Nice dodge of what I posted, though.
I can hear the "What did I dodge?" coming, so don't bother.
It doesn't matter anymore, anyway.
You're 24 karat Repug.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 10:03 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Saddam was backing down and asking the UN to inspect more; he knew he was gonna get it, and was not being intimidating. At no point did he state that he would kill us all.
Bush did not do it to protect us, you are either drunk or high to say that seriously.

Dig it deeper, man. You're losing whatever ground you had. Nice dodge of what I posted, though.
I can hear the "What did I dodge?" coming, so don't bother.
It doesn't matter anymore, anyway.
You're 24 karat Repug.

Okay. First you insult me, and then you ask me to do your research for you. Neither you or Rue seem to have a position about Saddam's atrocities, or whether he should have been punished for them.

Why not stop doing The Argument Sketch, and actually state your position in re Saddam's crimes, guilt, and punishment, and the reasoning behind it?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 10:10 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. First you insult me, and then you ask me to do your research for you. Neither you or Rue seem to have a position about Saddam's atrocities, or whether he should have been punished for them.

Just wanted to let you know that you're not the only sane person left in this thread, Geezer. Some folks are just so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they will go to any lengths to defend someone (regardless of how evil, vicious and depraved they may be) against whom Bush actually had the fortitude to finally say "enough is enough". The United Nations is a joke -- their sanctions and "resolutions" had about as much teeth to them as a Tickle Me Elmo doll.

You're beating the proverbial dead horse in here, Geezer. People with the capacity to reason can see the truth behind your statements -- although, I personally still would not ridicule Saddam Hussein, he certainly got better than what he'd dished out to his hundreds of thousands of victims.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 10:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Okay. First you insult me,

No. First I complimented you on the clever.

Quote:
and then you ask me to do your research for you.

No. I stated opinions.

Quote:
Neither you or Rue seem to have a position about Saddam's atrocities, or whether he should have been punished for them.

I believe I speak not only for Rue, but for every thinking being when I say that Saddam was a monster (and yes, once again, one we helped to be all he could be), and his crimes were most heinous. He deserved punishment in the form of life without possibility of cable.
Now, just speaking for me, if some relative of his victims got to him and offed him, that would be between them, and I would certainly endorse a hefty fine on that action- like $100.
See, he deserved what he got and more, but it shouldn't be up to us as a society to hang someone after a trial with no appeal process.
And if it WAS rightly judged that he die after due process, a painless injection would have done it.
We sink to the level of our so-called enemies when we...you know, sink to their level.

But then, you're the type to believe and endorse Mal to be a cold killer. From your POV, Mal and the Operative are the same, right? Only their objective differs, and that's what's wrong with you Geezer- the fight fire with fire, eye for an eye mentality.
You've learned NOTHING from Serenity.

But we always can change Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 10:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
he certainly got better than what he'd dished out to his hundreds of thousands of victims.

WITH OUR HELP, WITH OUR PERMISSION, WITH OUR BLIND EYE, you {those lacking in brainpower} seem to not get that. We got him to where he was, {unintelligent ones}! We didn't lift a finger to stop him until Kuwait's gold and oil was being jacked. Then, all of a sudden, AFTER all the deaths, he's this WMD-armed world threat. Why don't you wake up and smell what you're shoveling?
Pathetic psuedo-patriotic {persons}.

Tasmanian Chrisisall

Edited to preserve content while remaining angry

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 11:59 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Now, just speaking for me, if some relative of his victims got to him and offed him, that would be between them, and I would certainly endorse a hefty fine on that action- like $100.
See, he deserved what he got and more, but it shouldn't be up to us as a society to hang someone after a trial with no appeal process.
And if it WAS rightly judged that he die after due process, a painless injection would have done it.

Okay. So your position is that it's all right for an individual to murder someone if they feel they need revenge, but not all right for a state to execute someone after due process (An appeal was filed, BTW, on Dec. 03, 2006. A panel of nine judges reviewed the verdict and concurred with it.) for crimes committed agains the people of the state. You running for attorney-general and trying to court the gang-banger vote?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 12:33 PM

JONGSSTRAW

I think Saddam DID get a merciful death, at least by Iraqi standards.

The Government of Iraq could have :

a) Beheaded him in a public square
b) Drawn and quartered him with wild horses
c) Sent him through the human meat grinder he and his sons loved to use so much
d) Immersed him in a vat of acid as he and his sons loved to use so much
e) Thrown him off a rooftop as he and his sons loved to do so much
f) Beat him to death with sticks and bats as he and his sons loved to do so much
g) Put him in a room and gassed him.....

Don't shed any tears for him....save them for our own wounded and dead.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Okay. So your position is that it's all right for an individual to murder someone if they feel they need revenge, but not all right for a state to execute someone after due process (An appeal was filed, BTW, on Dec. 03, 2006. A panel of nine judges reviewed the verdict and concurred with it.) for crimes committed agains the people of the state.

It seemed like a kangaroo court to me, but IF I'm wrong- so be it.
And NO, it's not all right to murder at will, but temporary insanity might grip a relative of a victim, and in that case what he does, he does, and I for one would not prosecute the dude too much for it, assuming he got the responsible dirtbag.
It goes back to Jack Bauer, he puts the squeeze on a terrorist to find out where the ticking bomb is. Do we sanction his behavior? No. Do we understand it in that one, extremely rare, and improbable instance? I say yes. It's the difference between an accepted standard, and those special instances outside the norm.
Saddam deserved to be off this world, no doubt. To off him like they did, on a holy day to boot, was the act of revenge-seekers, not peeps of justice.
You want to go all Perry Mason on me, go ahead; I don't always discuss from an enlightened legal perspective- I go for what's ultimately right, and how I would want to be treated in return.
Ex: someone kills my family, they won't live long, but then neither would I for my crime of revenge.
Sound fair to you? (I hold myself to a tougher standard than a family member of Saddam's victim, but then, he IS a documented mass-murderer)
One more thing, do you torture a cold when you kick it? Do you laugh at it? Or do you get rid of it and go on?
And you aren't going to respond to my comments about your view of why Mal put that guy into his enging, are you? You aren't going to analyze why you see it that way, or question your take on it at all, huh?
Typical.

The less angry, but still kinda angry, but not too angry to stay on this a little longer Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 4:40 PM

PM Blair once said something that I thought was very apt.

“...some of the talk about [[]Iraq[]] in the past few weeks, I have to say has astonished me. Let's just be clear about the nature of the regime that we are dealing with. You would think from some of the discussion that we were dealing with some benign liberal democracy out in Iraq.” -- Prime Minister Tony Blair, 2002

I actually cracked a grin when I read that the first time in one of Blair's press conferences, because I had the exact same feeling.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 4:48 PM

Finn, you are one here who can directly address a question (and in RWED, that is an admirable trait), did you get the sense that Mal kicked that guy into his engine to intimidate the others, or purely as a knee-jerk reaction (pun actually not intended) to protect his crew?

Not as off topic as it seems IMO Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 7, 2007 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, you are one here who can directly address a question (and in RWED, that is an admirable trait), did you get the sense that Mal kicked that guy into his engine to intimidate the others, or purely as a knee-jerk reaction (pun actually not intended) to protect his crew?

Not as off topic as it seems IMO Chrisisall

I don’t know; I suppose it could be viewed both ways, but I personally kind of think it was a calculated move. If it hadn’t have been, why was the next guy moved to Crow’s location when he was interrogated? (because that’s where put someone you want to kick in the inlet?) Mal is a savvy pirate and he knows that you don’t deal with someone like Niska from a position of weakness. And of course, Crow’s comment about hunting them down wherever they go wasn’t a great career move when you’re on your knees in front of a turbine inlet, and I think Mal knew to take him seriously. In Mal’s mind, you either kill him now, or you wait for him to come for you. He’s pragmatist, not an idealist.

Now that being said, I just watched the last part of the Train Job again, and it was very clear the expression of disgust on Mal’s face after he kicked Crow into the inlet. I think Mal probably had every intention of killing Crow if he refused the money, but I don’t think he was happy about it . . . for whatever it’s worth to Crow as he shot out the aft exhaust in little pieces.

Crow’s a fictitious character, I can laugh at his demise.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 12:09 AM

SASSALICIOUS

Quote:
Saddam was a monster (and yes, once again, one we helped to be all he could be

*cough*Pol Pot*cough*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.

~Forsaken Forever

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 4:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t know; I suppose it could be viewed both ways, but I personally kind of think it was a calculated move. If it hadn’t have been, why was the next guy moved to Crow’s location when he was interrogated?

I just now watched it again myself, and Mal could not have cleanly kicked Crow into the intake from a kneeling position, Crow stood up to be imposing, to intimidate, and that's when he was in line with the port. I get that it was a piece of inspiration of the moment that came to Mal; Crow just put himself in the wrong physical position in his moment of grandure.
The next one was put in a kneeling position to talk to Mal, maybe with the idea in someone's head that it might work as a hint not to be all blowhard-y...but it doesn't seem to me that was the original set-up. My take on it, anyway.

Quote:

Crow’s a fictitious character, I can laugh at his demise.

Me too, after I got over the "Holy s**t!" of it, lol.

Over-analyizing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 5:28 AM

Yeah, I can see that. I guess the way one interprets that scene has a lot to do with the type of Mal someone wants to see: the spontaneous Mal that kills without thinking or the calculated Mal who kills premeditatedly. Or Perhaps the idealist Mal and the pragmatist Mal.

But the real question here is if Mal was standing right next to a turbine inlet with enough suction to pull Crow in, why didn’t we hear a load roar?

Also why does an engine used in space have an air inlet anyway?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 5:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

But the real question here is if Mal was standing right next to a turbine inlet with enough suction to pull Crow in, why didn’t we hear a load roar?

Also why does an engine used in space have an air inlet anyway?

Ummm, 'cause dem doohickeys don't work the way doohickeys in our time work; they gots better mufflers, and stuff. And the engines are used in atmo, AND space, so the have duel thruster type gizmos, one needing cooling, and....
*not sounding very smart here.....*

Aborting liftoff Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 5:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Ummm, 'cause dem doohickeys don't work the way doohickeys in our time work; they gots better mufflers, and stuff. And the engines are used in atmo, AND space, so the have duel thruster type gizmos, one needing cooling, and....
*not sounding very smart here.....*

Aborting liftoff Chrisisall

Works for me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 5:43 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Now that being said, I just watched the last part of the Train Job again, and it was very clear the expression of disgust on Mal’s face after he kicked Crow into the inlet.

I always figured the disgust was either, "Wow. Some people are just too stupid to live." or "Darn. There goes the warranty on that engine."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 5:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I always figured the disgust was either, "Wow. Some people are just too stupid to live." or "Darn. There goes the warranty on that engine."

Having seen first hand what seagulls do to jet engines I can’t imagine what a fully grown Crow would do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 5:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

I always figured the disgust was either, "Wow. Some people are just too stupid to live."

No, it was a feeling thing- an "I hate to kill folk" thing.

Quote:
or "Darn. There goes the warranty on that engine."

Funny- not. It was used.

Still ducking my question...
Afraid of self-examination...well that's okay. We can't all be Dr. Phil with ourselves, heck, I have a hard time with it myself.

Poking the deep dark recesses of Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 5:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Having seen first hand what seagulls do to jet engines I can’t imagine what a fully grown Crow would do.

Yer forgetting the particle flayers and debris inhibators...

Still not wankin' it well Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 6:51 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
He was unable to sucessfully attack AT THE MOMENT.
He controlled his destiny, and HE chose to attempt to intimidate- he wouldn't "eventually become" a threat; he was stating that he was a continuous living threat.

And my biggest sadness for you: "for intimidation value". You truly believe that that was Mal had in mind? That you could read that into the scene is where all of the anger at you comes from, dude.
The joke was that it happened to work out that way. Mal did it to protect his crew, and some part of him was unhappy about his percieved forced decision.

Cool. You just justified the invasion of Iraq.

To paraphrase:

"Saddam was unable to sucessfully attack AT THE MOMENT. Saddam controlled his destiny, and HE chose to attempt to intimidate- he wouldn't "eventually become" a threat; he was stating that he was a continuous living threat. The joke was that it happened to work out that way. Bush did it to protect his Country, and some part of him was unhappy about his percieved forced decision."

Couldn't have said it better myself.
"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

That's retarded. Exactly how was Saddam a threat? 4 years there, and still nothing to back that claim.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 7:11 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Still ducking my question...

Which question was that? About Mal pushing Crow into the engine? I think he did it because it's a Whedonesque thing to do, unexpected and shocking. It made a better bit of theatre than stuffing the money in Crow's mouth, duct taping it shut, and mailing him back to Niska with a nice note.

In one of the little quotes at the tops of these pages, Nathan Fillion describes Mal as someone who lost his compassion in the war. If that's the way he played it, I doubt the look of disgust had anything to do with regret over the death of Crow, just with the mess in his engine.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 7:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

In one of the little quotes at the tops of these pages, Nathan Fillion describes Mal as someone who lost his compassion in the war. If that's the way he played it, I doubt the look of disgust had anything to do with regret over the death of Crow, just with the mess in his engine.

This was the part I meant:
"But for you, it was Mal using a man as a tool, killing him to help achieve a desired end- the same thinking that makes an Operative possible."
You think Mal coldly killed Crow with his only regret being he dirtied his engine, that there was no twinge of hurt that he just offed a fellow human being, no hint of disgust that he lived in a world where he had to make that call.
And that shows where your head is at, and why many of you are no different than the terrorist scum we so despise. This whole thread is about mocking the need to get rid of a problem, and laughing about a being's torment.
Childish, tribal mentality, that

.
You want to remain squarely rooted in the 12th Century, be my guest. A few of us are attempting to, as Picard put it, evolve beyond that.

Compassion, the Final Frontier Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 8:06 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You think Mal coldly killed Crow with his only regret being he dirtied his engine, that there was no twinge of hurt that he just offed a fellow human being, no hint of disgust that he lived in a world where he had to make that call.

I think Mal killed Crow because it's a TV show and the writer thought that it would be more entertaining. You can't ask Mal bcause he doesn't exist.

Your "enlightened" position seems to be that it's all right to kill people if you feel bad about it for a moment.

I suggest that just because you see a people-sized package does not mean there's a person inside. It might be a mad dog. You euthanize mad dogs, be it with injection, hanging, or a trip through the port engine.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 8:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

I think Mal killed Crow because it's a TV show and the writer thought that it would be more entertaining. You can't ask Mal bcause he doesn't exist.

Actions real or imagined can both carry emotional weight. Unless you want to deflect, in that case the "It's not real", "They're not civilized", "Gays defy God"'s come out.

Quote:

Your "enlightened" position seems to be that it's all right to kill people if you feel bad about it for a moment.

Not what I said, and if I elabourate you still never will get it.

Quote:

I suggest that just because you see a people-sized package does not mean there's a person inside.

Were you standing in front of a mirror as you thought that one up? Being able to de-humanize another is a sure sign that you don't place much value on yourself...

C'mon Geezer, you good enough, you're smart enough, and gosh darn it, people love you!

Handy Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 8:54 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Being able to de-humanize another is a sure sign that you don't place much value on yourself...

I place quite a bit of value on myself. Somewhat less on people who would take what I value from me with no hesitation and no moral qualms.

So what makes a human anyway? The decorative packaging, or what's inside? Is it a general acceptance of the rules we've developed over time; don't murder, don't lie, don't steal, don't hurt, etc.? Can some human-looking beings be so far outside these rules that they don't qualify for the benefits of humanity any more? Obviously, I think so.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 9:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Can some human-looking beings be so far outside these rules that they don't qualify for the benefits of humanity any more? Obviously, I think so.

No, says I.
Saddam was a human being, twisted and evil perhaps, and he lost his right to live among us as he tortured his first victim, but he was still a human being.
I was sitting in a theatre that was showing a trailer from Faces Of Death way back when. It showed a documentary film-makes walking up to a lion for a close shot, and the lion up and mauled him; tore him right apart on camera. The audience mostly went EEEEWWW or laughed. I was silent, for a man had died. Maybe he was stupid, maybe he beat his wife, I don't know, but it was not funny. Peeps in the audience laughed mostly as a defence-mechanism.
And calling someone not-human is another. It is divorcing them from our reality, making them that which we could never be. A potential monster lives within us all, and no amount of rhetoric will change that.
Tell yourself what you need to, you will anyhow, just take some quiet moments to see how much your monster scares you; peeps most afraid of it have the greatest propensity for becoming one.

Here endith the lesson Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 9:24 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Saddam was a human being, twisted and evil perhaps, and he lost his right to live among us as he tortured his first victim, but he was still a human being.

Why? What makes Saddam a human being? You say he was, so you must have some objective criteria.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 9:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Why? What makes Saddam a human being? You say he was, so you must have some objective criteria.

Bored now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 9:58 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Why? What makes Saddam a human being? You say he was, so you must have some objective criteria.

Bored now.

Or has no answer now?

C'mon. You said Saddam is/was a human being, so it should be easy for you to explain that decision.

Let me help. Was it:

A) His human shaped outer shell?
B) His "Soul"?
C) His innate humanity?
D) His ability to grow and evolve to a higher consciousness?
E) Because you just KNOW it?
F) Because he loved kittens?
G) Because I don't think he was?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 10:15 AM

Because I own the only Saddam-bot, so he had to be the human one.

I'm gonna hafta hand this off to someone else, okay?

Saddam: a human being or not?

Take it away boys and girls Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 11:14 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Saddam was a human being, twisted and evil perhaps, and he lost his right to live among us as he tortured his first victim, but he was still a human being.

Why? What makes Saddam a human being? You say he was, so you must have some objective criteria.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I think there is more objective (note the importance of your own word choice) evidence that he was human. Where's your (again: objective) evidence that he was not?

Other than dehumanizing your enemies makes it easier to feel good about killing them.

A psychotic asshole, yeah. But still human.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 11:56 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think Mal probably had every intention of killing Crow if he refused the money, but I don’t think he was happy about it . . . for whatever it’s worth to Crow as he shot out the aft exhaust in little pieces.

The thing that strikes me most is the materials that they used to make that engine. I mean a small sparrow through your average Jet engine would make it turn itself inside out quite spectacularly, let alone a man, and a fairly substantial one at that.

Quote:
Also why does an engine used in space have an air inlet anyway?

Multi mode operation. Turbine jet engine for take off/lower air speeds, Ram Jet for higher air speed, rocket thruster for interplanetary/break away velocity.

Why use a rocket if all your doing is flying around in an atmosphere at sub-sonic speeds?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 12:02 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Why? What makes Saddam a human being? You say he was, so you must have some objective criteria.

What makes you a Human being?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 12:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
What makes you a Human being?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 8, 2007 1:36 PM