GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

How do Reavers pilot ships, them being insane cannibals and such?

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Thursday, December 2, 2021 10:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 38568
PAGE 2 of 4

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 4:09 AM

SMAUG


Hmm...

Some very interesting theries!!!

I am not going to hide this as spoilers.. becuase if you haven't seen the movie yet you shouldn't be reading threads that by now obviously talk about the movie!!! So GO SEE THE MOVIE and then come back!!!

Ok.. let's look at what we know. And I have not seen every episode of the series as of yet.. so there is still more I don't know. But we know that the reaver population is at least being maintained at some level.. weither it is growing.. we can only speculate that it might be because we know the reavers are expanding their territory. But that could be attributed to that they need to spread out to find more "food", and that their population is only being maintained. We don't know. But in "bushwacked".. yes.. we see there is a way for someone to still become a reaver. Mal's speculation is that seeing such a horror drives a person mad. I believe it takes something MORE than just that. But I think Mal's speculation at the time was two fold. One.. to describe to us how horrific the reavers are. That even the thought of seeing what they do and what they are is enough to drive a man inanse, but two it makes sence that Mal was wrong because at this point they (anyone but the key memebers of parliment) don't really know exactly what a reaver is.. the characters in the show are all just speculating just as we the viewers were.

And I think there have been some very good ideas in this thread. I think many of them could fit well into the story (wither they are technically possible or not) I believe it does have to be more than "just seeing what the reavers do" because the reavers where not created just by being at the edge of space too long like Mal orginally believed.

Now as far as River is concerened.. there have been a lot of good theries about her. So far I subcribe to the one that the alliance is trying to create a rather small "special force" that they can effectivily "turn on and off" thus are able to control. And use this special force to go in and take care of the reaver problem. Does the alliance have any other use at this point for such a dangerous weapon as River? Other than the possible threat of another war against the idendants.. is there any other threat to the alliance? I don't think the alliance is to frieghtened of the independants to need anything more than the army they already have. I think River was create for a specific peurpose... the reavers.

I think it makes sence that they want to do it small and under the radar. I don't know if we are aware of how big the alliance army is. But if they went head to head war agaisnt the reavers I think they may see that as a losing battle. Assuming it may take 10 men and 3 or so ships to each reaver and each reaver ship to even have a chance to defeat them. That's one hell of an army (what some 300,000 men and maybe 3000 or more ships?) they would have to send in. Not to mention that starting an all out war would draw a lot of attention to a "problem" that the alliance doesn't even what to admit is there. Thus that is why most people on the core planets think that reavers are just "ghost stories" and don't even know they are real. But the fact that the reavers are pushing into new territory.. they are not containing themselves, probably like the alliance had hoped they would and then just die off. Not to mention an all out war, if the alliance lost, THEN what would happen?? But if they had a special force of a couple dozen "rivers".. they could send them into reaver space and activate them and more or less let them spread from ship to ship taking out the reavers like a virus. Then when the reavers are gone, or at least heavily thined out, they send in a small army to go in and just clean up. At which point if any "rivers" are dead.. so be it.. and any that remain they deactivate and kill.. problem solved.

I think that makes pretty good sence And I think that with River.. the alliance was trying to create more of a controllable "super operative" than a controllable "super reaver". Although they may or may not have used reascearch into reavers and what created them in some of the things they used on River. I believe the alliances mistake was that they under estimated the ability to control River and they only sent in one operative. As skilled as the operative was.. once River gained control of her abilites.. is there any hope that even a dozen operatives would stop her? I think the alliance has a MUCH bigger problem on their hands now.. and I don't mean the reavers.. and I don't mean the word of Miranda getting out... and that is River.. now nothing in the 'verse can stop her. How can you hope to stop someone who can read every move you are going to make? and not just one perosn.. but possibly hundreds/thousands of people at a time?

My guess is that ther is more two it.. I don't think River is going to be as in control of her abilites as we may think. There are lots of possibilities there.. That's why we need our BDS!!!!!!


Smaug..



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

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 5:07 AM

DONCOAT


For the record, dreamtrove, I didn't see any other mention of Pax as a prion until after I made my post.

Case of GMTA, it would appear...

Now, as to River...

We know about Pax. We know the Alliance knows about Pax -- all it effects (that's how River found out). It's reasonable to assume that the Alliance researchers continued working on Pax, and that they may have discovered how to control it better.

So yes, River could have been treated with a form of Pax that triggers an ultra-aggressive mode of behavior -- but it's clearly much better controlled than the Reaver version. Maybe that's due strictly to River's high intelligence, neural conditioning, and all-around good-galism, which would mean the Pax itself is the same and River can't be re-Reaverized.

Or, more succinctly -- you may be right!

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

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 6:05 AM

SMAUG


Quote:
It's reasonable to assume that the Alliance researchers continued working on Pax, and that they may have discovered how to control it better.


Yes I believe this is a reasonable assumption.. there very well may be some crossover from what the alliance inadvertainly created with Pax. But Pax may have just been a starting point with the reasearce they were doing with River. Weither it did or didn't doesn't seem to have any bearing.. it's just interesting to speculate. But what may have bearing is why they created River in the first place? It makes since that River (and possibly others) were created solely for Reaver extermination under the radar like I explained in my earlier posts. What other threat to the alliance is there that would require such a dangerous and powerful weapon as River? Could there be something as of yet we don't know about besides the reavers?

I suppose there could be.. but a little off topic.. but I think that might start get into the terriiotry of making the story "too big". Firefly although having a very deep and layerd 'verse in with to explore.. has always been more about the little things.. where everytime they take a giant leap forward and reveal a major plot point or secret or hint to a secret.. they take 5 steps backwards and focus just on the day to day drugerey of these characters daily grind of trying to survive... and there relationships between them. And throwing in a heavy dose of humor and warmth that fits so nicely.. That's why there are so many people who would wish to see the series returned. I loved both the movie and the series.. rightfully so the movie had to pull the plot forward and thus push the characters back a little in order to show the "big picture".. but I also love seeing and exploring the individual strokes that make up the picture. I want to see more of the rust between the cogs of the machine.. not just the gears.

Smaug..

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

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 6:10 AM

DREAMTROVE


Doncoat, wasn't implying you copied the idea, I assumed that would be troll behavior. I was serious when I said it was a coincedental discovery, which increases the chances that it is actually right.

I think also, I agree with you, and hence with me, that River is a Reaver is essential, not because she is in many ways reaver-like, but because it makes her immune. She's already a reaver and can't be reavered again.

Smaug, I think the alliance could take the reavers out, but not without tremendous cost. In the time since I posted this last I thought of a better example than the HIV one I got slammed for. Consider the gangs, and pre-emptively, no this is not a racist comment. Consider the gangs, crips, bloods, etc., as a sociological phenomenon, and a group of people that cause a problem for the US.

In LA a few years back there was a story of a gang called the assassins. A middle class family took a wrong turn and got trapped in a dead end, and the assassins raped them and then cut them up into tiny bits. Very reaver-like activity. I don't know whether or not they ate them. Anyway, the point is, on a grand scale, the gangs, though numbers are way down now since the 90s, correct me if I'm wrong, but collectively kill more people each year than al qaeda ever has.

But gangs do not represent a threat to the govt. of the united states. So the US govt. never bothered. You can go further with this and say maybe the US govt. is racist, and perhaps the gangs survival in some way serves a govt. purpose. But both of these would also support the "let the reavers live" theory. The reavers after all protected the miranda secret very well by being in the way. They prey on outer colonies where rebels live, so it's not any foe of the alliance.

On river, she's a sleeper agent. It's clear that their other master agents suck. I don't know if there's a particular purpose, but sure they would need one. She's kind of a much more boinkable kai, last of the brunyn G. The way that Lexx finally dealt with Kai as a plot problem was introducing others. River is not the only reaver sleeper agent, and others will be a threat to her. River is probably as good as it gets in speed and skill, but what if the alliance created an agent that was just like river, only someone who was always in the kill zone, and had been modified to the maximum of human strength, or beyond, who had implanted cyberware armor making them virtually impossible to destory. You can see where this goes. River is unstoppable until she meets Firefly's Glory or Caleb.

Sorry just wanted to make sure everyone did. For those who didn't click the link and still don't know about prions, they're like the "green slime" in D&D. Only they're real. Fun huh? BSE is one that eats your brain.

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

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 6:17 AM

DREAMTROVE


Okay, I'm tempted to agree that this thread is getting kind of long. Doesn't bother me I have a fast connection, but the thought that maybe the convo could move to a new thread.

Not to throw the whole thing out of whack, but here's another theory. Maybe Reaver prion was the pax, but maybe it was already extant on the planet before terraforming. We see the terraforming process and there's nothing there which would destroy a prion. So it's perfectly feasible. It could be a combination with that and the pax, or an infection some people got on the planet and the pax.

I don't this trumps the "pax is prion" theory by any means, but it's also possible.

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

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 7:20 AM

SMAUG


Quote:
Smaug, I think the alliance could take the reavers out, but not without tremendous cost.


Which is exactly what I said. The alliance could take the reavers out.. but at what cost? We don't know exactly how big their army is. Would it take half their fleet to tdo ti? More? That's why I like the idea that River (and maybe others) where being created to take care of the problem.. under the radar.. of course until Simon rescued River.. So I agree with you.. my statements must not have been as clear as I thought..


But during my lunch I thought of another analagy for the Reavers. In another thread I remember someone saying that in the Pilot episode that the reaver ship was "shark" like. Which I think may be a very good analagy for the reavers. They are like great white sharks. They are perfectly capable of passivily wondering around space.. ignoring a potential "kill" if they are not "hungry". They can surely communicate amongst each other.. enought to create/fix/man a ship. Not that they are sitting around having tea or anything.. There may be "alpha" reavers to keep groups of them in line to keep them from killing each other.. but most of the time they are proably just passivily meandering about.

The fleet of ships we see in the movie sort of show this. They weren't really doing much but just lazily swimming around like a bunch of passive sharks... Which is what you have to assume they are doing most of the time. That is until something triggers their bloodlust... it could be hunger.. or sexual.. or both.. but when that is triggered.. they go into a berzerker freenzy.. like a shark feeding frenzy..

How does that fit??

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

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 7:36 AM

SHINY


Quote:
Originally posted by khimbar:
At the Con my gf asked Chris if he knew if Joss had been inspired by or heard of the Border Reivers. He didn't know, but I figure he had.


Someone actually did ask Joss this at some con (WonderCon?) and he sarcastically said, "uh...yeah, of course I knew all about the history of the scottish Reivers" all mock-knowledgeable.

---

Serenity is coming. 9/30/05.

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

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 9:01 AM

MALC



My two cents.

Reavers are able to sustain periods of lucidity through radiation. That's why they run their ships with poor containment. The gamma and beta radiation alleviates some of the symptoms of the Pax - at least for a while. As treatments go it's appalling of course. Even if there are female reavers, the entire community (tribes?) would probably be sterile or suffer from birth defects. Not that we're talking model parents here.

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

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 9:09 AM

KHIMBAR


Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
Quote:
Originally posted by khimbar:
At the Con my gf asked Chris if he knew if Joss had been inspired by or heard of the Border Reivers. He didn't know, but I figure he had.


Someone actually did ask Joss this at some con (WonderCon?) and he sarcastically said, "uh...yeah, of course I knew all about the history of the scottish Reivers" all mock-knowledgeable.

---

Serenity is coming. 9/30/05.


Well the man's a God, he knows everything.

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

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 6:01 PM

CLETUSMUSASHI


Wow. I like the idea about the radiation increasing their functionality. Maybe they weren't a random aberration among the Pax victims, but they were Pax victims who were transformed by some localised disaster that bumped up the radiation in their area. Government researchers perhaps; intelligent enough for some to figure out how to live after the change, but not high ranking enough to be exempt from the brainwashing gas. In fact, I'll one up that idea. Radiation + Pax not only created the Reavers, but is required by their new physiology. So their ships continue to keep Pax in the atmosphere, their engines continue to leak radiation, and anyone who's onboard with them for a few hours becomes one. If they need 50 more people on the ship, they'll just make them, probably out of people who already know how to serve on ships. Which brings us to the question of communication. I'm guessing that they continue to speak the same English/ Chinese fusion they did before, but butchered so much that it is not decipherable to the unpracticed ear. The same linguistic rules probably apply, excpt for whatever Reaver-specific slang has evolved over the course of the decade, but the way each individual word sounds has to be learned from scratch. Of course, if the person learning also has a tongue cut the same way as those who he is trying to learn to communicate with, that helps.

I'll be in my bunk.

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

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 6:33 PM

DREAMTROVE


Not passing judgement on the shark vs. wolf debate, should it arise. Both are valid possibilities, but of course would create vastly different realities:

In Reaver is wolf, it's calculating, methodical and plans attacks with acumen and forethought.

The reaver is shark world, it's a mindless killing machine. It attacks in groups because there's a mad free-for-all.

I have to confess that what we see, visually, is a point for the reaver is shark world. I guess I find reaver is wolf world in some ways preferable, but I can see also a compromise here: Reaver is shark-wolf.

I'm going to kill them all. That oughtta distract 'em.

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

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 6:43 PM

DREAMTROVE


We all know everything now.

"transformed by some localised disaster"

yeah agreed, I post something similar as a possibility. Still pax is prion is perhaps more interesting, because it leaves the possibility that random people are potential reavers and everyone else is food. People are different.

I don't buy the radiation is a yay for reavers. They're still organisms, they're actually still human. They're going to have the same radiation sickness as you me or a bacteria would have. One of the limits of sci-fi is you can't do whatever you want. Unlike in fantasy, you're bound by certain rules. Radiation can only help a machine or creature which is so different it doesn't classify as life as we know it.

On communication, here's a really bad idea.

Well it's a good idea.

But it's bad for us living normal humans.

Well you living normal humans.

Reavers are telepathic.

For some reason it's always been assumed that telepathic creatures are geniuses. This simply ins't the case in nature. The most telepathic beings, such as ants, and possibly some jelly fish species, are intelligent sure, when compared to moss, but not when compared to Einstein.

Telepathic Wolf Shark Reaver is a Prion-generated neo subspecies, and River is one of them.

I love it. This is just getting better with the telling.


I'm going to kill them all. That oughtta distract 'em.

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

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 8:49 PM

CLETUSMUSASHI


I was a bit shaky about the plausibility of the radiation requirement myself, but it was a puzzle piece that I had to try to fit. After all, the shorter their life expectancy, the harder it is to get their population to the point it's obviously built to, but the lack of radiation containment seems to be a recurring theme. Maybe the radiation is necessary for "turning", so they keep the level up on raiding ships where recruiting is a possibility, but they spend most of their time on other, safer ships, that stay out near Miranda.
Or, maybe they're all a bunch of big fakers like Mal, that just pretend to fly around without containment in order to look scary.


I'll be in my bunk.

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 1:00 AM

DONCOAT


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
For some reason it's always been assumed that telepathic creatures are geniuses. This simply ins't the case in nature. The most telepathic beings, such as ants, and possibly some jelly fish species, are intelligent sure, when compared to moss, but not when compared to Einstein.
Just out of curiosity, by what definition of 'telepathic' do ants and jellyfish qualify? They communicate in ways that are quite alien to us, but there's no telepathy involved. (This skeptic would require some extraordinarily good evidence to accept that claim!)

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 8:54 AM

GEEKMAFIA


This reminds me of an old story seen here in snopes.
seems pretty relevant

http://www.snopes.com/medical/asylum/tirenut.asp



WASH: Little River just gets more colorful by the moment. What'll she do next?
ZOE: Either blow us all up or rub soup in our hair. It's a toss-up.
WASH: I hope she does the soup thing. It's always a hoot, and we don't all die from it.


Liou coe shway duh biao-tze huh hoe-tze fuh ur-tze

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 9:10 AM

XEROGRAVITY


Ya know you guys/gals have alot of very thought-provoking concepts about the origins of reavers (or reivers ~ whatever spelling most pleases you).

Funny thing... cannibalism isn't an original concept. You should crack open books of Europeans travelling via ship... not your politically correctified history books where ship's captains were all mythical slavers trying to build some ruthless empire .. I mean the direct accounts of captains sailing the great endless abyss. The world was full of "savages" who'd gladly lure you ashore, ambush you, and have you on a spit over the village fire.

Funny thing. Whole otherworld cultures existed with cannabilism. Somehow they didn't self-destruct by eating each other. They always only ate the "outsiders".

XG ~ fan of the grossly distorted villain, "Captain Bligh" (I know, I read his account)


No such thing as gravity. The "Earth-that-was" just sucks.

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 9:42 AM

CITIZEN


Erm, I feel I have to reply here...

Ya'll are talking about Reaver society, language and all the rest and, well, ya know, there's not one scrap of evidence that say's they have such things...

And I'm afraid the argument, Reavers can pilot ships because they pilot ships in the series/film just don't cut it...

Select to view spoiler:


These guys aren't insane, they're beyond insane. They don't have lucid moments.
They don't sit around the dinner table and say:
"I say chaps, I'm a little peckish, do you fellows fancy a quick township snack?"
If they acted the way they do because they went insane from the enormity of space, then I could believe they have lucid times in which they could pilot a spaceship. However, the film makes it clear that they are the way they are because of a chemical action. Effects like that don't disappear, or get turned on/off for convenience sake.
The closest parallel I can think of for Reavers would be the Zombies from 28 days later. They aren't people, even insane people, anymore. They are an emotion, un-tempered by reason or even other emotions. They are rage, pure hatred and anger.
Those are the Reavers that Joss suggests in Serenity, and they are not capable of piloting spacecraft...




More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 10:14 AM

SEP7IMUS


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I disagree that social behavior is pure nurture. A lion raised by french girls will not behave like a french girl. These are minor social differences between american girls and french girls, tied to a very minor difference between a black person and a white one, these aren't statistically significant forces kicking around. Not like lions and reavers.


Am I a lion? I don't think so. I never thought of myself as a lion.

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 10:19 AM

DREAMTROVE


Okay, I wrote a big long post and apparantly it got eaten because it's not here. So to summarize

1. Ants communicate by releasing neurotransmitters by brain cells, and shooting them out antennae, it's the same process that happens in their brains as out. This is not smellovision here, it's clearly closer to true telepathy.

2. Some species of jellyfish contain semiautomonomous units which the brain communicates with by a sort of pseudo telepathy, but it's all inside the fish. This is different from the light based communication they use with other jellyfish.

I think this not-human-anymore is part reality and part fantasy. The definition of human is a very fuzzy one, and people who write sf and come up with the not-human twist are like people who believe everything breaks down into good and evil. In short, they don't understand people very well. Joss clearly does, so reavers are bound to be more complex.

I figure Joss sometimes does the simple thing, since he made soulless demons and vampires as enemies in buffy. Vampires with souls was an attempt at complexity, but it was weak, and well, a little corny. But I expect more from reavers, the alliance and various components of firefly. I think firefly is launching much more into shades of grey than the more black and white of the buffyverse.

I'm still backing the sharkwolf hypothesis here. It sounds best.

Evidence for the possible telepathy of reavers is this:

1. River is a reaver for all practical purposes, and she's telepathic. Sure she's a lot more cogent than most of them, we would assume, actually we don't have to assume it because she annihilates them.

2. Some sort of vague telepathy or empathy would work well to help them coordinate things. Their ability to communicate through talking seems limited, and clearly they need to carry out pretty complex tasks.

3. If sharks were telepathic, they might behave more like wolves. This would generate what we see, as a pattern of behavior.

Telepathy, in general, in sf, is stupid. It's dumb and gets dumber. So for it to be interesting something interesting should happen with it. I was a little upset at the implication that River had gained enough control to specifically here thoughts she wanted to instead of random ones at the end of the movie. OTOH it could be just that everyone can predict what people are going to say to some extent, exaggerated. But if this is omniscient telepathy, that's an amazingly boring idea Joss.

Reavers on the other hand would have a much less cognitive telepathy. The would be able to tranfer will, or feel pain, or something. Like, if we're on a reaver ship and kill a reaver in the engine room, four reavers on the bridge would feel it.

It would be like a reaver says "Hey joe, this is sam talking in your head, let's go grab mal and bite his ears off."

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 10:39 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
1. River is a reaver for all practical purposes, and she's telepathic. Sure she's a lot more cogent than most of them, we would assume, actually we don't have to assume it because she annihilates them.

Erm, no. There's nothing, anywhere, that links the Reavers to River in anyway... beyond conjecture of people who WANT to see a link. I don't hold to the idea that River or the other 'students' of the 'academy' were made to kill the Reavers.

Select to view spoiler:

May I remind you that River was made the way she is by psychological torture, and willful medical procedures carried out on her brain. The Reaver's were made the way they are through the PAX


Quote:
2. Some sort of vague telepathy or empathy would work well to help them coordinate things. Their ability to communicate through talking seems limited, and clearly they need to carry out pretty complex tasks.

That's the "they must be able to pilot ships because they do it in the series/film" argument. I'm not denying that the Reaver's show complex behaviours in the series/film, I'm denying that the argument set forth for their origins allows for that sort of complex behaviours.

Select to view spoiler:

Your using the argument of 'well there's shades of grey' etc etc, I'm not denying that either. I'm saying that the explination of the PAX sets out the Reavers as more simple than a rabid animal.


Quote:
3. If sharks were telepathic, they might behave more like wolves. This would generate what we see, as a pattern of behavior.

Erm, what? If Sharks had complex brains they'd behave more like wolves, like Dolphins. They don't because they are essentially dumb 'lone' hunters. It's nothing to do with the absence of telepathy. In fact, with out a complex brain, even if they had telepathy they wouldn't act like wolves.
Quote:
Telepathy, in general, in sf, is stupid. It's dumb and gets dumber. So for it to be interesting something interesting should happen with it. I was a little upset at the implication that River had gained enough control to specifically here thoughts she wanted to instead of random ones at the end of the movie. OTOH it could be just that everyone can predict what people are going to say to some extent, exaggerated. But if this is omniscient telepathy, that's an amazingly boring idea Joss.

Why?
Quote:
Reavers on the other hand would have a much less cognitive telepathy. The would be able to tranfer will, or feel pain, or something. Like, if we're on a reaver ship and kill a reaver in the engine room, four reavers on the bridge would feel it.

Reavers are not telepathic.
Quote:
It would be like a reaver says "Hey joe, this is sam talking in your head, let's go grab mal and bite his ears off."

Even if they were, they'd communicate through images and emotion, not words.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 11:18 AM

SEP7IMUS


Citizen,

I'm confused. You're saying, essentially, that the explanation for the Reavers existence doesn't allow for the complex behaviors they exhibit on the show (like piloting ships). So, you say that they can't pilot ships?

That doesn't make much sense. Since we SEE them piloting ships, it hardly seems reasonable to suggest that they can't do it.

It seems more reasonable to say that your interpretation of what the effects of their origin would be (i.e. "less than a rabid animal") is wrong.

Select to view spoiler:


Clearly, Pax is more complex than it might first appear.


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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 11:34 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Sep7imus:
That doesn't make much sense. Since we SEE them piloting ships, it hardly seems reasonable to suggest that they can't do it.

Erm, no. I'm saying Joss's explination for where they came from, and their behaviour don't mesh. I'm saying he, as a falible human being, albiet a talented one, made a mistake. Your argument invites the assumption that there is no such thing as a plot hole.

We see them do it therefore they can etc, is a post hoc and flawed analysis, is all.

Say I wrote a Zombie film, and in that film I explained that Zombies were rage filled beasts. That they were incapable of high-level reasoning and only 'lived' to kill. Then I had them driving a car and talking about today's weather. That would be a plot hole. It is also what people here are suggesting for Reavers.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:30 PM

GUNRUNNER


Quote:
Originally posted by Smaug:
I think it makes sence that they want to do it small and under the radar. I don't know if we are aware of how big the alliance army is. But if they went head to head war agaisnt the reavers I think they may see that as a losing battle. Assuming it may take 10 men and 3 or so ships to each reaver and each reaver ship to even have a chance to defeat them. That's one hell of an army (what some 300,000 men and maybe 3000 or more ships?) they would have to send in. Not to mention that starting an all out war would draw a lot of attention to a "problem" that the alliance doesn't even what to admit is there. Thus that is why most people on the core planets think that reavers are just "ghost stories" and don't even know they are real. But the fact that the reavers are pushing into new territory.. they are not containing themselves, probably like the alliance had hoped they would and then just die off. Not to mention an all out war, if the alliance lost, THEN what would happen?? But if they had a special force of a couple dozen "rivers".. they could send them into reaver space and activate them and more or less let them spread from ship to ship taking out the reavers like a virus. Then when the reavers are gone, or at least heavily thined out, they send in a small army to go in and just clean up. At which point if any "rivers" are dead.. so be it.. and any that remain they deactivate and kill.. problem solved.


Where do you get the 10 to 1 (Men) and 3 to 1 (ship) kill ratio? We’ve only seen the Alliance fighting the Reavers once that they were planning on capturing only one unarmed smuggler ship not engaging in a full-fledged battle. The Alliance military’s ranks are no doubt filled with highly trained and well-equipped “sailors” (spacers?) and solders. While the Reavers despite there fearlessness and ferociousness are grossly out gunned. A bunch of big spears, some tow cables and a few EMPs doesn’t match up well against a full fleet of proper warships with guns, missiles, and fighters. Even at the Battle of Okinawa the US still managed a 5.5 to 1 kill ratio against the Japanese on the ground, in the air and on the sea the numbers were even more slanted. I think the only Alliance capital ship we see lost (Well I saw lost, I need to see the movie a couple more times to soak that whole sequence in) was destroyed by RAMING! The Reaver’s whole battle tactics concept seems to be one big Bonzi Charge. Such a maneuver against a prepared foe will either fail or succeed with massive casualties (see Battle of Chosin Reservoir), and with so few Reavers out there (someone before said 30,000 and that isn’t much, only a couple of Divisions worth) they can’t take many large losses before they simply run out of Reavers while the Alliance has reserve forces and can conscript new troops.

A covert action is preferable but the Alliance could wipe them out fairly quick if it came down to it and make up some good story to cover up the losses. After all the Alliance did seem to win the battle over Mr. Universe’s planet.

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 1:07 PM

SMAUG


Quote:
Where do you get the 10 to 1 (Men) and 3 to 1 (ship) kill ratio?


This is the internet.. I just pulled it out of my a$$

No seriously... not that I gave it THAT much thought.. but if you think that Reavers aren't just your typical advisary. They are horrifically insane. I was thinking more or less along the lines of aliens. If a half dozen well armed and highly trained space soliders went in and totally got their asses handed to them by about 100 or so aliens. Which made since. I figure if there were 100 marines they still would have lost, at least I believe that would. 300 marines.. hmmm.. maybe they would have pulled it out.. makes sense to me. 500 marines... probably would have done it with some serious casualites.. so it might take 1000 marines to win handedly. Better to just nuke em from orbit So that is briefly where I got the 10 to 1 ratio.

Not that this makes the 10 to 1 ratio valid.. I was just quickly trying to come up with a number that makes sense to me that it might take to handily win. But like I said.. I mainly pulled it out of my a$$ lol

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 1:11 PM

SMAUG


Quote:
A bunch of big spears, some tow cables and a few EMPs doesn’t match up well against a full fleet of proper warships with guns, missiles, and fighters.


Well don't you remember what those Ewoks did to the empire with much less than that?? lol.. and you can't tell me that reavers aren't million times bigger and badder than Ewoks?? :D lol..

/I keeed I keeed..

Smaug..

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:01 PM

GUNRUNNER


Quote:
Originally posted by Smaug:
Quote:
A bunch of big spears, some tow cables and a few EMPs doesn’t match up well against a full fleet of proper warships with guns, missiles, and fighters.


Well don't you remember what those Ewoks did to the empire with much less than that?? lol.. and you can't tell me that reavers aren't million times bigger and badder than Ewoks?? :D lol..

/I keeed I keeed..

Smaug..
We all know the Ewoks were able to do that because the Empire couldn't just use Nerve Gas on them from the safty of their tanks since they are a proper military force that follows the conventons of war unlike those Rebel crimnals.


Quote:
Originally posted by Smaug:
Quote:
Where do you get the 10 to 1 (Men) and 3 to 1 (ship) kill ratio?


This is the internet.. I just pulled it out of my a$$

No seriously... not that I gave it THAT much thought.. but if you think that Reavers aren't just your typical advisary. They are horrifically insane. I was thinking more or less along the lines of aliens. If a half dozen well armed and highly trained space soliders went in and totally got their asses handed to them by about 100 or so aliens. Which made since. I figure if there were 100 marines they still would have lost, at least I believe that would. 300 marines.. hmmm.. maybe they would have pulled it out.. makes sense to me. 500 marines... probably would have done it with some serious casualites.. so it might take 1000 marines to win handedly. Better to just nuke em from orbit So that is briefly where I got the 10 to 1 ratio.

Not that this makes the 10 to 1 ratio valid.. I was just quickly trying to come up with a number that makes sense to me that it might take to handily win. But like I said.. I mainly pulled it out of my a$$ lol


Good point about Aliens. But Urban Warfare sucks. LOL The Colonial Marines did lose their commander in the first engagement and ended up being commanded by a Civilian with no reinforcements available. They went in prepared for a rescue mission and walked in to a firefight and got spanked, which happens. But in a full scale war I bet the Marines would win. I mentioned Okinawa, there a bunch of well…. errr… adequately trained troops (Highly trained Marines followed by moderately trained Army troops.) went up against a bunch of entrenched fanatical suicidal Japanese and won. Yea they blew them selves up and charged at US forces armed with nothing but a knife or sharp stick, some US units got hit bad but we still took the island. You can afford to totaly lose a couple of small units in exchange for taking your objective, simple mathmatics (yep you can kill'em with it).

EV Nova Firefly mod Message Board:
http://s4.invisionfree.com/GunRunner/index.php?act=idx

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:49 PM

DREAMTROVE


Citizen

I'll make this short and to the point.

1. I know this stuff all ready, I'm not speaking from a position of ignorance here.
2. I know a heck of a lot about the underlying science here, and I think Joss' scenario as laid out in the movie is spot on.

This stuff is fan theory, but also valid:

3. River wasn't made to kill reavers, she was made to be like a reaver, to add their abilities to an alliance assassin.
4. Someone make the analogy of sharks and reavers, I think by what we see, it's a good one. Obviously sharks are dumb, they don't have brains. But the similarity exists.
5. We only know how reavers communicate with normal humans, we have no idea how they communicate with each other, so all speculations are equally valid.

Story is problem solving by proxy, omniscient characters already know the answers ergo omniscience is the opposite of story.

Citizen. No offense. really, but I think you are missing several key points here.

1. Insanity. It's not the same thing as stupidity, it's not even related. It's like assuming someone is fat on the basis that you know their height and nothing else.

2. Writing. There are many things which work in stories, and many which do not.

3. Joss. Joss might make errors, but he doesn't make a lot of them. He's incredibly diligent. Anything which on the surface appears to be an error has to be examined very closely, because chance are it's not. Many people on the IMDb boards leapt to the conclusion that Joss made a goof.

I don't mean to be hostile or flame you, I'm just pretty sure that my posts were valid and I have plenty to back them up, but they are essentially only fan theories. Post you opposing ones. You just gave me too many attacks to respond to at any more length. If you have a specific gripe, post the one thing that's bugging you and I'll try to explain where I'm coming from.

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 2:52 PM

DREAMTROVE


I agree with the number that came out of Smaug's ass. More or less. I mean we see them fight with some kickassedness. It took a whole bunch of alliance to take one down in the knife in the wormhole ep. whatever it's name was. people keep saying it, it's on the tip of my brain.

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 5:45 PM

DARTHVEGAS


I dont think River was developed to take out the Reaver's. I think River was made to use against political targets- just in case the Browncoats try to rise again or some new group threatens the Parliament. The Reavers were never a big deal to the Alliance- unless they start hitting the Central Planets- right now it is much more cost effective or easier to write off Reavers as the campfire tales of some gorram mudfarmers on the Rim, and wait for the Reavers to die out on their own. But as we saw in the movie (sorry spoiler coming) the Military knew who the Reavers were and DID NOT want to tangle with them, so they might have lost some ships or special forces to them.





"This is something the Captain need to take care of himself."
"No he doesnt!"
"Oh...Oh!"

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 8:21 PM

SIMONSAYS


Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Citizen said they're too messed up to efficiently run a spacecraft or work together coherently; I maintain that they have selective psychosis, and are able to do what needs to be done in service to their insane bloodlust.

What are the theories regarding this, anyone care to set us straight?

Chrisisall creepafied


DUDE, 2 words.......AUTO PILOT!

Remember what LOUIS VUITTON said: "It's in the bag!"

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 8:22 PM

SIMONSAYS





Remember what LOUIS VUITTON said: "It's in the bag!"

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 8:22 PM

SIMONSAYS





Remember what LOUIS VUITTON said: "It's in the bag!"

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 8:29 PM

SIMONSAYS






Remember what LOUIS VUITTON said: "It's in the bag!"

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 9:43 PM

TERAPH


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Erm, no. I'm saying Joss's explination for where they came from, and their behaviour don't mesh. I'm saying he, as a falible human being, albiet a talented one, made a mistake. Your argument invites the assumption that there is no such thing as a plot hole.


The only vaguely reliable thing we are told in the show or movie about where the Reavers came from is that due to the Pax, "Their aggressor response increased... beyond madness..."

Other characters say things about them, but the woman who reports on the Pax is the only one whose information goes beyond hearsay, legend and campfire stories. That woman doesn't give us much to go on. She's probably never studied a specimen, or observed Reaver behavior over a long period, so her observational evidence is pretty limited.

That leaves a huge amount of unanswered questions regarding Reaver limits, attitudes, abilities and society (if any).


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
We see them do it therefore they can etc, is a post hoc and flawed analysis, is all.


So, "we see monkeys use tools, therefore monkeys can use tools" is a post hoc fallacy? Are you sure you aren't stretching the definition of a post hoc fallacy a bit far? Post hoc is a fallacy of cause and effect. There is no cause and effect being stated in "We see them do it therefore they can".



Reavers pilot ships. Reavers build things onto their ships. Reavers build traps.

Reavers do not always attack instantly when they observe prey. Reavers leave behind constructions that exhibit industry (the bodies in the hold in "Bushwacked" -- unless the survivor did that). Reavers don't always kill everyone (unless the man in "Bushwacked" watched from somewhere and the Reavers didn't find him).

These are observable facts. The facts win. If what we're told disagrees with the observable facts then the information we are given is incorrect or incomplete, or the observation is flawed in some way.

(EDIT: Excepting those occasions in fiction when both the observation and the source of information are unimpeachable (such as an omniscient narrator) -- then it's just crappy writing. :) )


Now, for a theory, based on nothing but it being 1:21 am when I start writing it:

Reavers are driven by rage, but the rage can be satiated. Much like a pyromaniac gets some pleasure and relief from burning something, Reavers get pleasure and relief* from destroying, consuming and violating things. The rage never goes away, but it subsides to levels where it doesn't need to be served. The rage has not destroyed the ability of Reavers to build tools and traps, or to use ships. The rage drives them, but it has destroyed them. (Think people on a bizarre combination of PCP, Meth and maybe a little 'roid rage for flavor.) (Okay, alot of 'roid rage...)

(*"Relief" is a subjective term here.)

Reavers find clean and symmetrical things to be unpleasant (the opposite of most people). This includes human symmetry -- which is why they disfigure themselves. This also, as a by-product, makes it easier to identify outsiders. It's also why they don't kill each other: why violate what's already been violated? (Pyromanics don't usually torch buildings that have already been burned to the ground...)

Reavers have a preference for live meat, which may be the related to the impulse toward violence -- dead men don't fight back and by their very nature are already destroyed. It's unclear how long a body can be dead before Reavers are unwilling to eat it, if they eat non-human meat, or if they ever eat other foods when desperate for nourishment.

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

Thursday, October 13, 2005 11:40 PM

XEROGRAVITY


Ok I'll get into the fray on this one... too much intermingling of science with science fiction...

Ok ~ a brain-altering chemical is introduced into the air supply on Miranda. Designed to effect the region of the brain directly linked to aggression. The chemical interacts with other chemicals unique to the planet's atmosphere, and the end-result becomes something the Alliance Gestapo didn't plan for. 30 million people become sedate and lose all motivation... even their basic motor skills (thus becoming prime candidates for employment at the Department of Motor Vehicles). A small percentage have an opposite reaction to the chemical (per the movie ~ 1/10th of 1 percent ~ i.e. the 30,000 reavers).

My theory: basic motor skills and cognitive abilities remain intact among the 1/10th of a percent. However... that region of the brain that controls their libidinous and aggressive impulses has been reversed in function ~ versus being destroyed in most of the populace.

Voila. You got yerself rapist cannibals.

This is the singlemost absurd discussion I've ever been in.

XG


No such thing as gravity. The "Earth-that-was" just sucks.

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

Friday, October 14, 2005 7:28 AM

CITIZEN


DreamTrove:
Quote:
Originally posted by DreamTrove:
I don't mean to be hostile or flame you, I'm just pretty sure that my posts were valid and I have plenty to back them up, but they are essentially only fan theories. Post you opposing ones. You just gave me too many attacks to respond to at any more length. If you have a specific gripe, post the one thing that's bugging you and I'll try to explain where I'm coming from.

Firstly, I'm sorry if I offended you, it was not my intention. I was not attacking you, your points maybe, but not you. The same goes for this post.
As for my theories, well, they're simple really. That the original explanation for Reavers. They were created by people being driven mad on the edge of space (see below) no PAX required.
Quote:
1. I know this stuff all ready, I'm not speaking from a position of ignorance here.

I would really like to see your evidence, as no canon FireFly sets out Reavers as being the same as River. Nor is it mentioned or implied that Reavers are telepathic. If I have over looked something I would like to know.
Quote:
2. I know a heck of a lot about the underlying science here, and I think Joss' scenario as laid out in the movie is spot on.

As in parapsychology and psi? I know the underlying science extremely well myself. I'm not disputing that in anyway. I'm disputing that the Reavers are capable of it on any meaningful level. I also think the argument of 'they must be telepathic' is clutching a straws some what.
Quote:
3. River wasn't made to kill reavers, she was made to be like a reaver, to add their abilities to an alliance assassin.

I don't see it. A Reaver isn't an assassin. More-over any government would love a practically invincible telepathic assassin, whether Reavers existed or not.
I'm sorry I just don't see the reasoning behind the argument that River = Reaver.
Quote:
4. Someone make the analogy of sharks and reavers, I think by what we see, it's a good one. Obviously sharks are dumb, they don't have brains. But the similarity exists.

My assertion was that pack behaviours were a product of greater intelligence, not telepathy, nothing more.
Quote:
Story is problem solving by proxy, omniscient characters already know the answers ergo omniscience is the opposite of story.

Oh, I see what you mean, good point. I don't think that counts for River though. It adds a lot to the storyline that she can know a great deal about what’s going on around her, but can't articulate those insights in meaningful ways.
Quote:
1. Insanity. It's not the same thing as stupidity, it's not even related. It's like assuming someone is fat on the basis that you know their height and nothing else.

I never said insane was stupid. You misunderstand my point. I said that Reavers were beyond insane, that the explanation for their existence (i.e. PAX) would prevent them using their intelligence for high-level reasoning (required to build weapons, run ships, etc). It would also prevent the emergence of 'Reaver society' or any level of teamwork what so ever (including pack hunting).
Quote:
2. Writing. There are many things which work in stories, and many which do not.

Not sure what your point is here, can you elaborate please?
Quote:
3. Joss. Joss might make errors, but he doesn't make a lot of them. He's incredibly diligent. Anything which on the surface appears to be an error has to be examined very closely, because chance are it's not. Many people on the IMDb boards leapt to the conclusion that Joss made a goof.

Where as others are leaping to the conclusion that he didn't (and indeed in some cases couldn't!) . I'll believe that this isn't a plot hole when Joss shows an interesting and believable Reaver society, and how the PAX can produce the emergent behaviours required.

Teraph:
Quote:
Originally posted by Teraph:
The only vaguely reliable thing we are told in the show or movie about where the Reavers came from is that due to the PAX, "Their aggressor response increased... beyond madness..."

Yes, exactly. People aren't capable of rational problem solving or thinking when angry. I sure as hell wouldn't want to drive a car when angry. Anger beyond madness is the key. I'm saying that the PAX makes them not insane, but beyond insane. Alien.
Quote:
So, "we see monkeys use tools, therefore monkeys can use tools" is a post hoc fallacy?

No, but that's real life, not film. We see a Pig speak in Babe, but I've never had a meaningful conversation with one.
Please see below for a clarification.
Quote:
Reavers pilot ships. Reavers build things onto their ships. Reavers build traps.

Reavers do not always attack instantly when they observe prey. Reavers leave behind constructions that exhibit industry (the bodies in the hold in "Bushwacked" -- unless the survivor did that). Reavers don't always kill everyone (unless the man in "Bushwacked" watched from somewhere and the Reavers didn't find him).

These are observable facts. The facts win. If what we're told disagrees with the observable facts then the information we are given is incorrect or incomplete, or the observation is flawed in some way.

You seem to have misunderstood my point, I'll try and make it clearer. I'm saying that Reaver behaviour in the Series and the Film, and the Films explanation for their origins just don't work together. I'm saying that people driven beyond madness by a chemical that makes them in to pure anger and rage wouldn't show those complex behaviours.
They always chase those who run, for instance. Even animals don't do that.
Therefore the Post-Hoc analysis. We see them do it, therefore they must be capable, and the PAX fits in there some how, lets just take it on faith...
Quote:
Reavers are driven by rage, but the rage can be satiated. Much like a pyromaniac gets some pleasure and relief from burning something, Reavers get pleasure and relief* from destroying, consuming and violating things. The rage never goes away, but it subsides to levels where it doesn't need to be served. The rage has not destroyed the ability of Reavers to build tools and traps, or to use ships. The rage drives them, but it has destroyed them. (Think people on a bizarre combination of PCP, Meth and maybe a little 'roid rage for flavor.) (Okay, alot of 'roid rage...)

(*"Relief" is a subjective term here.)

Reavers find clean and symmetrical things to be unpleasant (the opposite of most people). This includes human symmetry -- which is why they disfigure themselves. This also, as a by-product, makes it easier to identify outsiders. It's also why they don't kill each other: why violate what's already been violated? (Pyromanics don't usually torch buildings that have already been burned to the ground...)

Reavers have a preference for live meat, which may be the related to the impulse toward violence -- dead men don't fight back and by their very nature are already destroyed. It's unclear how long a body can be dead before Reavers are unwilling to eat it, if they eat non-human meat, or if they ever eat other foods when desperate for nourishment.

Despite it being 1:21am for you that’s one of the better explanations I've heard. Still don't *quite* buy it but it's the best so far.
It explains for instance why Reavers don't always attack.
It doesn't explain how a Brain can be reconfigured by the PAX, and then how this innate rage can be sated.

You see I liked the "men going mad at the edge of space" argument. It happens, and it has precedent. People go mad from isolation (even in groups). It's not hard to imagine that people "staring in to the abyss" of space could drive themselves mad simply thinking about how small we are compared to the expanse of the black. How insignificant... how nothing we do really matters... how nothing we do to each other...

Basically I liked the idea that Reavers became crazed sociopathic serial killing psychopaths. It's believable that they could begin to piece together a 'society' (despite being sociopaths), and work together (sociopaths and serial killers etc have worked together). They could do terrible things to people, everything that we see and hear Reavers doing, while still being capable of all those intelligent things they obviously do.
The PAX explanation doesn't work for me, they don't have the feel that the PAX suggests.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

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

Friday, October 14, 2005 7:37 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by XeroGravity:
This is the singlemost absurd discussion I've ever been in.

If you don't like the discussion, don't contribute. That remark is simply Trollish.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

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

Friday, October 14, 2005 2:18 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Say I wrote a Zombie film, and in that film I explained that Zombies were rage filled beasts. That they were incapable of high-level reasoning and only 'lived' to kill. Then I had them driving a car and talking about today's weather. That would be a plot hole. It is also what people here are suggesting for Reavers.

No canonical source says they are incapable of high-level reasoning. No source even implies it. The actions in the movie and the show flat out contradict it (as you have said) and the origin implies it isn’t the case.*

You made up the idea that they are mindless killing machines, and as you have pointed out that idea does not remotely fit into the Firefly-Serenity continuity. As such perhaps you should make up a new idea.

-

*The origin is that a drug was created to weed out aggression (nothing about intelligence) and it worked but also weeded out ambition, sexual desire, hunger, and motivation in general. In a small percent of the population it had the reverse effect, thus it made it so that those people were very aggressive, very lustful, and very motivated (my god look how motivated the bastards are).

The movie practically went out of its way to say that there was no effect on intelligence or cooperation. It made sure to only say that their aggression was pushed “beyond madness.”

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

Friday, October 14, 2005 2:35 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
You made up the idea that they are mindless killing machines, and as you have pointed out that idea does not remotely fit into the Firefly-Serenity continuity. As such perhaps you should make up a new idea.

NO the FILM made up that idea. The only time their mental reasoning is mentioned in both the series and the film is too say they have none. My assertion is that they do, but that the PAX doesn't allow for their emergent behaviours. Read my posts. I quite clearly say my only problem with the Reavers is that the PAX is an insufficient explanation.
Quote:
It made sure to only say that their aggression was pushed “beyond madness.”

Right, so people who's aggression has been pushed beyond madness would be able to act in a cooperative manner?


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

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

Friday, October 14, 2005 2:54 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Yes, exactly. People aren't capable of rational problem solving or thinking when angry.

I really want to know what world you are living in, because it is not the one I’m in.
Ok, first thing:
Aggression does not equal anger.

Second:
Rational decision making is often hindered by anger, but rational problem solving isn’t hindered nearly as much. I’m afraid I can’t give an example because I don’t know which type of problem solving you mean. I can tell you that in areas from calculus to navigation to skiing to laptop troubleshooting anger isn’t much of a hindrance.

Quote:
I sure as hell wouldn't want to drive a car when angry.
And yet the majority of people who do do not get into accidents.
Quote:
Anger beyond madness is the key. I'm saying that the PAX makes them not insane, but beyond insane. Alien.
Nothing about that implies a lack of the skills you claim they lack.

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

Friday, October 14, 2005 3:07 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
You made up the idea that they are mindless killing machines

NO the FILM made up that idea.

Where? When? When did it even imply that they are mindless?
Quote:
The only time their mental reasoning is mentioned in both the series and the film is too say they have none.

Once again, when and were? I remember that they had no philosophy, I remember that they said they forgot how to be men, I don’t remember anything calling them mindless, or stupid, or anything along those lines.

Also recall that you are refuting the logic of the origin, so even if they do it only effects the argument if it is directly related to the PAX.

Quote:
My assertion is that they do, but that the PAX doesn't allow for their emergent behaviours. Read my posts. I quite clearly say my only problem with the Reavers is that the PAX is an insufficient explanation.
I am well aware of that assertion, as I am aware of your assertion that the PAX explanation implies that do not. On the other hand I have not read a single explanation for why. Each time you have jumped from the PAX explanation to mindless killing machines without a middle step.

Quote:
Right, so people who's aggression has been pushed beyond madness would be able to act in a cooperative manner?

Some always have and they probably always will.

The best example of teamwork I have ever seen was flipping over a bus in the middle of a very violent, very angry, mob. It was the quickest and most efficient example of group organization I have ever seen. I wish I could adequately describe it, but you just had to see how they worked together to set up makeshift levers, position fulcrums, distribute manpower, and then flip the bus more quickly than seemed possible.

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

Friday, October 14, 2005 3:47 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I really want to know what world you are living in, because it is not the one I’m in.

Do you really want to start trading insults?
Quote:
Ok, first thing:
Aggression does not equal anger.

No, but anger and aggression go pretty much hand in hand. I'd go as far as saying it's not really possible to have one without the other.
Quote:
Rational decision making is often hindered by anger, but rational problem solving isn’t hindered nearly as much. I’m afraid I can’t give an example because I don’t know which type of problem solving you mean. I can tell you that in areas from calculus to navigation to skiing to laptop troubleshooting anger aren’t much of a hindrance.

So you've been that angry all you want to do is kill the object of your aggression and you've had no hindrance to you rationality huh?
Quote:
And yet the majority of people who do do not get into accidents.

Okay, you might be right; we are living in different worlds. Yours would be fantasy if you truly believe that.
Quote:
Nothing about that implies a lack of the skills you claim they lack.

That's because you’re taking my comment out of context and trying to imply its meaning to a different aspect of the discussion.
Further more I'm not claiming they lack these skills. I'm claiming that the explanation for their origins would preclude their ability to use them.
Quote:
Where? When? When did it even imply that they are mindless? It says that they don't have a philosophy...
Once again, when and were? I remember that they had no philosophy, I remember that they said they forgot how to be men, I don’t remember anything calling them mindless, or stupid, or anything along those lines.

I was maybe overzealous when including the series there. As I said, the series explanation I have no (real) problem with.
As for the Film it goes beyond "they have no philosophy" and the scientist hologram certainly implies, if not actually says (but I'm tired, and it's been awhile since I've seen the film) that the Reavers were mindless.
Quote:
Also recall that you are refuting the logic of the origin, so even if they do it only effects the argument if it is directly related to the PAX.

You were the one bringing in other elements. If you wish for me to keep focused on this specific point please do so yourself.
Quote:
I am well aware of that assertion, as I am aware of your assertion that the PAX explanation implies that do not. On the other hand I have not read a single explanation for why. Each time you have jumped from the PAX explanation to mindless killing machines without a middle step.

Then why were you debating a completely different point entirely? And I have given my reasoning. I have yet to see you give a reason beyond, Joss said PAX did it, and Reavers fly ships, therefore no plot hole.
Quote:
Some always have and they probably always will.

The best example of teamwork I have ever seen was flipping over a bus in the middle of a very violent, very angry, mob. It was the quickest and most efficient example of group organization I have ever seen. I wish I could adequately describe it, but you just had to see how they worked together to set up makeshift levers, position fulcrums, distribute manpower, and then flip the bus more quickly than seemed possible.

Was this before, during or after the Killing, raping and cannibalism? I ask because if those factors weren't present these people were not showing aggression or anger to the extremes of the Reavers. Therefore your analogy doesn't quite work.
Beyond that I seriously have my doubts that your mob, given the fact they aren’t at the extremes of the Reavers, would be capable of operating and maintaining a spacecraft.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

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

Friday, October 14, 2005 5:20 PM

EYETOOTH


First post (been lurking for a while though).

I think it's an issue of dramatic symmetry. The natural corollary for people who wind down to apathy would be people with liberated libidos. There can be no doubt that those with absolutely no impulse control don't co-operate, don't gell with societies, and don't pilot spaceships.

However, we're presented with the incontrevertible evidence that Reavers do co-operate, do have a society (of sorts), and do pilot ships. As said above the origin of the Reavers is presented in brief by someone who was about to die at their hands (encouraging a bit of hyperbole) and who is vague on behavioural specifics anyhow. There's still plenty of room to explain away their necessary intelligence and/or ability to co-operate, as shown by the heaps of posts ready to do so.

Thus intelligent reavers kind of fail on a dramatic level, but they can still be consistent on a strictly plot basis. They seem less like a plot hole than an imperfection in the artifice.

Hope this doesn't get lost in the incipient flame war...

__________________________________________________

Fist of tallow, tongue of ash.

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

Saturday, October 15, 2005 1:33 AM

CITIZEN


Thanks eyetooth, that was getting a little too heated for a moment there.

Essentially your making the same point as I was, albeit from a slightly different perspective.
Quote:
Originally posted by eyetooth:
The natural corollary for people who wind down to apathy would be people with liberated libidos. There can be no doubt that those with absolutely no impulse control don't co-operate, don't gell with societies, and don't pilot spaceships.

Exactly!
Quote:
However, we're presented with the incontrevertible evidence that Reavers do co-operate, do have a society (of sorts), and do pilot ships. As said above the origin of the Reavers is presented in brief by someone who was about to die at their hands (encouraging a bit of hyperbole) and who is vague on behavioural specifics anyhow. There's still plenty of room to explain away their necessary intelligence and/or ability to co-operate, as shown by the heaps of posts ready to do so.

But in order to do so you have to disregard canon evidence (which includes the scientists statements, which are at least as valid as fan conjecture, and possibly more so), hence my assertion of a plot hole.

But thanks for a well reasoned and thoughtful post.


More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

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

Saturday, October 15, 2005 3:40 AM

SEP7IMUS


I'll jump once more into the fray...

Citizen, here is your argument, as I understand it:

1. IF the Reavers were created by PAX, a chemical that affects their chemistry increasing their rage/aggression/etc. to hyper levels, then they would not be able to pilot ships (have a society, etc.).
2. We see them pilot ships in the show and movie.
3. Therefore, the PAX is an inadequate explanation for the Reavers behaviors that we actually see.
4. This is a plot hole (either a fault in the explanation of their origin or in their behavior, but the two are incompatible).

Do I have your argument correct?

If so, my argument with your argument is with the very first statement. How do we know that being infected/affected by the PAX chemical makes these higher-brain-function activities possible?

There is CERTAINLY no statement to that effect in the show/movie. All of the statements, basically, talk about how inhumanly aggressive they are. The only statements attributing that to the PAX are those by the researcher on the film. She doesn't make any poitn about their intelligence or lack thereof.

I could see why you would want to make that leap. It certainly seems plausible. It even seems logical to think that people driven beyond madness would usually be incapable of performing higher-order tasks.

But, it's not IMPOSSIBLE that they could, and, as we clearly have evidence in the show and movie, they can. If it weren't for the specific evidence to the contrary in the show/film, your assumption would be the logical one.

"Once you have ruled out the impossible, whatever you have left, however improbable, must be the truth." (Or whatever it was that Sherlock Holmes said that means basically that.)

(It is, of course, not IMPOSSIBLE that Joss just screwed up, but for the internal logic of the series, it is. Therefore, if there is any explanation, however improbable, short of "Joss screwed up," then that's the logically correct one. If, of course, too many highly improbable events occur, that's a sign of bad storytelling, but I don't really think that this one instance, based as it is on an assumption about the effects of a fictional chemical, rises to that level.)

I think that, despite your preference for the psychological.sociological explanation on the show (stared into the nothingness of space...), you are actually imagining the PAX explanation as somehow more powerful and determinative than it needs to be. There is nothing that says that just because it is a chemical rather than sociological explanation it must therefore be all-or-nothing as you seem to believe. As a few people have pointed out, it's quite possible that the Reavers can be "sated" or that they have lucid moments or that their logical thinking isn't impaired by their aggressivity.

Personally, from a poetic/literary perspective, I prefer the show's explanation more; the nothingness of space is a powerful idea. What I like about the PAX explanation is that by attributing the Reavers to the effects of the Alliance's plans, it suggests that human beings are to blame for the terror that they are so eager to suggest is entirely alien to them. The vast nothingness of space is easy to blame. It's a bit harder if you have to take responsibility for the horrible aggressivity that lies within people.

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

Saturday, October 15, 2005 4:42 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Sep7imus:
Citizen, here is your argument, as I understand it:

1. IF the Reavers were created by PAX, a chemical that affects their chemistry increasing their rage/aggression/etc. to hyper levels, then they would not be able to pilot ships (have a society, etc.).
2. We see them pilot ships in the show and movie.
3. Therefore, the PAX is an inadequate explanation for the Reavers behaviors that we actually see.
4. This is a plot hole (either a fault in the explanation of their origin or in their behavior, but the two are incompatible).

Do I have your argument correct?

That is, essentially, it yep.
Quote:
If so, my argument with your argument is with the very first statement. How do we know that being infected/affected by the PAX chemical makes these higher-brain-function activities possible?

There is CERTAINLY no statement to that effect in the show/movie. All of the statements, basically, talk about how inhumanly aggressive they are. The only statements attributing that to the PAX are those by the researcher on the film. She doesn't make any poitn about their intelligence or lack thereof.

I'm assuming you meant impossible, so I'll debate that point.
The only reference for the PAX effects is to say that in most cases it put people in such a state of apathy that they just stopped breathing, moving, eating etc...
Essentially they just stopped. The opposite effect of that would be aggression beyond reason. The ONLY way Reavers could work a society, given the extreme levels of aggression and loss of impulse control suggested by the film (based on the observed effects of the PAX and what the only character with any knowledge on the subject has to say on it), is if they could be sated in someway.

However the idea that they could be sated is not canon, and therefore is merely fan conjecture.
In a similar vein I could just as easily make the argument that the Reavers have nothing to do with the PAX what so ever, and all data to the contrary is a conspiracy (Chrisisall will like that one...) designed to discredit the Alliance. That all the recordings were planted by anti Alliance groups who ended up using our BDH's as an unwitting pawn in their mission to take control of the galaxy.

Basically I'm saying that in order to mesh the two known facts (PAX as origin, Reaver society/abilities) requires us to either assume canon evidence is exaggerated, or too ignore it completely, and come up with essentially baseless explanations to fill in the gaps left by the loss of this canon evidence.

Quote:
The vast nothingness of space is easy to blame. It's a bit harder if you have to take responsibility for the horrible aggressivity that lies within people.

I see it in a very different way. The chemicals did it has been a mainstay of Zombie movies for years. It's been in Sci-Fi for sometime also. It's actually quite cliché, and, IMHO not a particularly good one. The nothingness of space has never really been done before.
Moreover I'd say that the PAX is a much more comfortable explanation for us. It means I could never do those terrible things the Reavers do, because I haven't been exposed to the PAX. If I was exposed to the PAX I would not be responsible for my actions, it would be the fault of the PAX and by extension whoever infected me with it. The nothingness of space explanation obviously implies that anyone could become a Reaver, given the right circumstances. That Reavers are people pushed over the edge, so too speak, not just the product of a chemical agent...
That we all have a little Reaver in all of us...

I went to a screening where Joss was actually present for a Q/A afterwards. I did have a question that’s a little aside (though unfortunately I didn’t get to ask it). The whole ‘erosion’ of Alliance power suggests (to me) that Joss is setting up the future possibility of a second War of Independence (which I’d also like to see on screen). In which case the
Reavers’ being the result of the PAX is a nice way of tying together a lot of threads and giving the ultimate possibility of this WI2. I’d still say it’s a flawed explanation from the Reavers POV though.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

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

Saturday, October 15, 2005 6:35 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I really want to know what world you are living in, because it is not the one I’m in.

Do you really want to start trading insults?

Actually it’s not an insult. It’s a simple recognition that even though we live on the same planet we can live in very different worlds. The way one sees things, interprets those things, and indeed the basic axioms one takes as irrefutable fact differ from person to person and place to place.

Quote:
No, but anger and aggression go pretty much hand in hand. I'd go as far as saying it's not really possible to have one without the other.

This is what I mean about different perceptions of reality. I have seen a lot of cases in which very angry people are totally non-aggressive, and perfectly calm people are very aggressive. It all depends on the motive, if the aggression is without motive I see no connection to anger.

I do not see anger as related to the issue as it is separate from aggression, and as such only respond to it because I believe that your conclusions on that are also incorrect and you seem hell-bent on including it. Anger will be covered at the end.

Quote:
Further more I'm not claiming they lack these skills. I'm claiming that the explanation for their origins would preclude their ability to use them.

Why? How would highly increased aggression preclude their ability to use the skills?

Quote:
As for the Film it goes beyond "they have no philosophy" and the scientist hologram certainly implies, if not actually says (but I'm tired, and it's been awhile since I've seen the film) that the Reavers were mindless.

Well when you are not tired please tell me how you came to the conclusion she implied it. I saw nothing of the sort.

Quote:
I have yet to see you give a reason beyond, Joss said PAX did it, and Reavers fly ships, therefore no plot hole.

Please do not confuse me with others. What I have said has nothing to do with Joss. It actually does not even have to do with them flying ships. It is only about you assertions. What I have said would apply just as well if there were a situation totally unrelated to Firefly, Serenity, and Joss in which we were only given the explanation of the PAX.

I would still maintain that those effected as the Reavers were would have the ability to operate and maintain space ships if they had the prior knowledge and ability or the resources to learn the necessary skills. Of course I probably wouldn’t think to mention space ships in that situation.

My reasoning is simple, and it is in two parts:
1 The points that you have used to argue for a plot hole are not based on the movie but your own misconceptions about both the effect of anger and the relationship anger has to aggression.
2 As there is nothing that indicates a plot hole it is unnecessary to invent one.

Quote:
You were the one bringing in other elements. If you wish for me to keep focused on this specific point please do so yourself.

I am not bringing in other elements. There is one specific monologue related to their origin, and you have yet to produce something from that monologue to support your claim that the origin “precludes their ability to use” the skills you claim it does.

All I have done was respond to what was said in the monologue, and what you have said.

Personally I think you are brining new elements in by asserting that anger is necessary without reasoning behind it. Soldiers routinely kill people who they are not angry at, which is pretty damn aggressive. There have been cases of torture in which there was no anger involved.

There are many cases of rape where the attacker is not angry at the victim.

I eat a hell of a lot of meat and I am not remotely angry at that which I ingest. In cultures including cannibalism the cannibals are seldom angry at their food. In some recorded cases of cannibalism the ones eating loved the ones they ate.

-

Quote:
So you've been that angry all you want to do is kill the object of your aggression and you've had no hindrance to you rationality huh?

No one says Reavers are that angry. Just want to reiterate that.

Now, on to what you asked:
You are ignoring a very important distinction. Rational behavior, behavior consistent with reason, is very different from rationality, exercising the ability to reason.

If you are saying rationality my answer is hell yes. If you mean exercising rational behavior than my answer is sometimes.

Rational behavior means that the behavior as a whole, is consistent with reason, the goals and risks as well as the reasoning itself. While being angry might make me have goals that are unreasonable, or take risks that are unreasonable, it does not stop me from using reason to consider various options, how they will work out, their effects, and fulfilling all complex functions necessary to reach those goals.

And just to be clear, I have been angry enough that all I want to do is inflict the greatest possible harm on someone, but I really don’t think killing someone is the way to do that. Dead people don’t feel pain. Thankfully those feelings never really lasted all that long.

Quote:
Quote:
And yet the majority of people who do do not get into accidents.

Okay, you might be right; we are living in different worlds. Yours would be fantasy if you truly believe that.

Are you aware of how many angry people on the road? Compare that to the number of accidents involving angry people. Most do not get into accidents.

People have, of course, done studies on this. People who have high anger while driving do indeed get into more accidents, none the less the majority of them do not get into accidents. (Interestingly enough calm people and highly angered people statistically have the same number of major accidents per capita.)

Quote:
Was this before, during or after the Killing, raping and cannibalism?

In the middle of the killing and raping.

Cannibalism is not related to violence or aggression, it is simply a form of food and some very non-violent groups have eaten people. Even groups where people were killed in order to be eaten (or eaten alive) there was not a consistent lack the skills and cooperation you argue exists.

Quote:
I ask because if those factors weren't present these people were not showing aggression or anger to the extremes of the Reavers. Therefore your analogy doesn't quite work.

I still don’t understand what cannibalism has to do with it. People are regarded as a form of food, and food is eaten alive by some people. If you regard people as a form of food these things are not related to anger or aggression all that much, at least not any more than perfectly rational people in certain oriental cultures who pay so that they may eat bats alive.

As for the murder and rape, yes it was present.

Quote:
Beyond that I seriously have my doubts that your mob, given the fact they aren’t at the extremes of the Reavers, would be capable of operating and maintaining a spacecraft.

They were cooperating, improvising, and using some of the the basic skills and knowledge needed to repair a car if they were familiar with it’s workings. If they were familiar with the operating of and mechanics of a space ship why would they be unable?

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

Saturday, October 15, 2005 8:43 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC


Quote:
The only reference for the PAX effects is to say that in most cases it put people in such a state of apathy that they just stopped breathing, moving, eating etc...

Essentially they just stopped. The opposite effect of that would be aggression beyond reason.

That is a leap of faith. There isn't any evidence for it in real life or the fiction involved.

Aggression does not have the relationship to reason you seem to think it does. Aggressive people can have unhindered reason, hyper-aggressive people can also have unhindered reason, so if elevation of aggression does not lessen reason why would the ultimate elevation do that?

(Also we don't know that it is the ultimate elevation, it would not take total apathy to make someone lay down and die. They didn’t need to stop caring but only to care so little that they would didn’t see the point in working to keep living.)

Reavers are the opposite of apathetic, as both you and the movie say. That means that they care about things, they seek pleasure, they are willing to take risks, they have high enthusiasm, they desire involvement, and they have high motivation. (The inverse of each aspect of apathy.) They have and care about the goal of seeking pleasure and involvement, enthusiasm for that goal, they are highly motivated to achieve the goal and are willing to take risks to attain it. This, of course, results in hyper-agression.

There is nothing about reason there, you have simply added that.

This supports what is seen of Reavers:
Obviously their involvement takes the form of control (which is the ultimate form of involvement), control over life and death, the ability to do things to people that those people do not want done (raping them for example) and to place themselves in a spot traditionally regarded as one of control: the top of the food chain. They also seem to get pleasure from these things, which makes sense considering the desire for such involvement, and thus they go about attaining it.

The origin, as I understand it, implies that they will do whatever it takes to get this pleasure (supporting what is said about them in the show and movie), which in turn implies that they will cooperate and be rational if that will help (again supporting, not contradicting, what is said in the show and movie.)

Quote:
The nothingness of space has never really been done before.

Once again this is an example of us living in different words. Damned if I haven’t seen that a lot. From The Twilight Zone to sections of Star Trek Voyager, the effects of the nothingness of space has been done. I really can not think of two things further apart in sci-fi than Star Trek and The Twilight Zone.

The nothingness of space is also comparable to the nothingness apparent on the sea when unable to find land, or fish, or any other living thing. That has caused rational murdering cannibals in the past. (I think it has in fact caused rational raping murdering cannibals, but I am not totally sure about the rape.) And as such is not exactly new.

Further there is a problem with the Reavers going insane because of the nothingness of space, as Jayne says, “Just looked like … more space.” Everyone in the Firefly solar system has to deal with that same nothingness because as we know, from being here on Earth, planets don’t look like something filling up space, they just look like bigger stars, and the “edge of space” in Firefly and Serenity is full of stars.

I also like the idea of Reavers being created by being in space too long. I wonder what would become of people after they had killed their friends to avoid suffocation and eaten their families to avoid starvation, something that could well happen on a space ship if it had problems. What would they be like when they finally got back to civilization? What would they do after they repaired their ship?

But just because I like it doesn’t mean I have to argue that the explanation given is incorrect, it makes sense and is consistent with what we know, even if it is slightly more cliché than people going insane through isolation in nothingness.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
... given the extreme levels of aggression and loss of impulse control suggested by the film...

Once again, where is the loss of impulse control suggested? What part? What words? You say you only disagree with the origin, so where in the origin does it imply a lack of impulse control?

It just says that they are hyper-aggressive and the opposite of apathetic, those are things agreed with outside of the origin as well. Those are things that are supported more by the actions of Reavers than the origin.

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

Saturday, October 15, 2005 9:54 AM

XEROGRAVITY


You folks have long since lost me on this thread. Oh I know we're off on multiple tangents debating the cannibal psychology of reavers, and beyond 60 or 70 posts this thread becomes the domain of the pure "core" of fans, but...

Ridiculous. Ridiculosity. Followed by.. ridicule...

It was a simple and fair question from a thinking mind... if reavers are rabid raping flesheaters, how is it they can possess the aptitude to fly and navigate a spaceship. Aren't they simple mindless zombies like in all the "hollywood" movies? I mean, c'mon already. Nobody rapes, murders, and then devours their victims unless they are zombies. Well.. never mind all that stuff in the history books about primitive "savages" who were cannibals. Silly nonsense.

There is also the leap from an episode of FF where Mal prophesizes the reaver-ization of a survivor from a reaverized ship. With almost psychic intuition he fortells of this person becoming psychotically driven to murder and self-mutilation (followed by the amateur attempt at surgery by said survivor on them die-by-the-dozen silly bits of villian fodder, those Alliance troops). Someone suggested "Stockholm Syndrome" which worked for me, but nooooo. Newp newp newp.

Let's torture this logic to the point of being absurd beyond all recognition. Let's go off on tangents where River is a reaver, etc. I won't even recount the laundry list of silliness I've read in this thread. It goes on and on. Absurd.

I guess I'm a "troll". How dare I impose a seemingly obvious (yet detached) critical view of this whole debate.

For crying out loud.

XG


No such thing as gravity. The "Earth-that-was" just sucks.

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

Saturday, October 15, 2005 11:45 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Actually it’s not an insult. It’s a simple recognition that even though we live on the same planet we can live in very different worlds. The way one sees things, interprets those things, and indeed the basic axioms one takes as irrefutable fact differ from person to person and place to place.

Then I misunderstood. That line is usually used as an insult.
Quote:
This is what I mean about different perceptions of reality. I have seen a lot of cases in which very angry people are totally non-aggressive, and perfectly calm people are very aggressive. It all depends on the motive, if the aggression is without motive I see no connection to anger.

I do not see anger as related to the issue as it is separate from aggression, and as such only respond to it because I believe that your conclusions on that are also incorrect and you seem hell-bent on including it. Anger will be covered at the end.

Are you a psychologist? No really I mean you say cases so I'm merely wondering. Otherwise it's entirely possible you don't understand exactly what Aggression is. To clarify:
http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap7/
A psychology website. It uses the terms Aggression and Anger interchangeably.
Quote:
Anger, aggression ... are intertwined in many ways

http://www.dualdiagnosis.org/index.php?id=7&pid=8
Quote:
Anger can be expressed in the form of ... aggression, and violence.

http://www.siu.edu/offices/counsel/anger.htm
Aggression (of the type we're talking about) is the outward manifestation of Anger.
Just because you don't see Anger as a related issue doesn't make it so. So you have no basis to tell me to leave it out of the argument.
Quote:
Soldiers routinely kill people who they are not angry at, which is pretty damn aggressive. There have been cases of torture in which there was no anger involved.

Have you ever tortured anyone or been a soldier? What cases of torture?
I'd actually say the soldier is angry, but that anger is channelled and controlled. Anger is widely accepted as a natural response to physical threat.
Quote:
Anger is usually a central feature of a survivor's response to trauma because it is a core component of the survival response in humans.

http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/facts/specific/fs_anger.html
Quote:
There are many cases of rape where the attacker is not angry at the victim.

I've never heard of a rape case where the attacker was not angry at something. You don't have to be angry at the object of your aggression to be angry. Rapists are nearly always angry at the world or themselves. They are seldom angry at the victim.
Quote:
I eat a hell of a lot of meat and I am not remotely angry at that which I ingest.

Since when has merely eating a dead piece of meat even been considered aggressive?
Quote:
In cultures including cannibalism the cannibals are seldom angry at their food. In some recorded cases of cannibalism the ones eating loved the ones they ate.

It's not the cannibalism; it's the fact that the 'prey' is eaten alive. None of your examples indicate cannibals that eat live prey.
Quote:
Why? How would highly increased aggression preclude their ability to use the skills?

Firstly you require proof of me that it does, but do not require proof of your self that it doesn't.
But:
Quote:
Aggression destroys relationships. People believe that in order to survive, they must combat the opposition. Fear and anger destroy hope for healthy communities, workgroups, families, and organizations. Relationships fracture, distrust increases, people retreat into self-defence and isolation, paranoia becomes commonplace.

Quote:
Uncontrolled anger can trigger a large number of anti-social behaviours

http://topcondition.com/images/mymindfield/anger_management.htm
Quote:
anger encourage impulsive reactions, irrational behaviour, poorly thought-out decisions

http://www.wilderness-survival.net/mind-2.php
And before you say "but it diminishes it doesn't preclude" it's anger at a level we experience. The Reavers (according to the PAX explanation) experience the emotion WAY beyond that.
Anger and Aggression have a detrimental effect on society, and if all members of society experience uncontrollable Anger and Aggression then society will collapse. It's a well known fact that aggression from one team member in the workplace is detrimental to teamwork. It's not a leap of faith to surmise that greater levels of aggression would have a greater detrimental effect. It is also not a leap of faith to surmise that if everyone on that team was acting to this level of aggression then that team would cease to function. It's logic.
Quote:
No one says Reavers are that angry. Just want to reiterate that.

No, they act that angry, and the PAX and what is said about it implies it.
Quote:
Are you aware of how many angry people on the road? Compare that to the number of accidents involving angry people. Most do not get into accidents.

People have, of course, done studies on this. People who have high anger while driving do indeed get into more accidents, none the less the majority of them do not get into accidents. (Interestingly enough calm people and highly angered people statistically have the same number of major accidents per capita.)

Quote:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has used the following factors to identify crashes involving aggressive driving: speeding, tailgating, failing to yield, weaving in and out of traffic, passing on the right, making improper and unsafe lane changes, and running stop signs and red lights. STPP narrowed that definition, excluding aggressive driving crashes in which drugs or alcohol were a factor, and including only very excessive speeding, above 80 mph. Using these parameters, we found that aggressive driving is a factor in about 56% of all fatal crashes.

http://www.transact.org/report.asp?id=57
Quote:
In the middle of the killing and raping.

So all members of the Mob were involved in this. Cause if it's only a few out of the group it's still not the same thing.
Quote:
I still don’t understand what cannibalism has to do with it. People are regarded as a form of food, and food is eaten alive by some people.

I challenge you to name one cannibalistic culture that ate people alive.
Quote:
They were cooperating, improvising, and using some of the the basic skills and knowledge needed to repair a car if they were familiar with it’s workings. If they were familiar with the operating of and mechanics of a space ship why would they be unable?

There is a huge difference between exploring and then fixing a fault within an engine and flipping a Bus with a lever.
You've said nothing that suggests your mob, in it's at time state, could have performed, off their own violation, the required operations to operate and maintain any piece of complex machinery.
Quote:
The origin, as I understand it, implies that they will do whatever it takes to get this pleasure (supporting what is said about them in the show and movie), which in turn implies that they will cooperate and be rational if that will help (again supporting, not contradicting, what is said in the show and movie.)

Now who’s making leaps of faith? Where is that expressed or implied in the movie?
Quote:
From The Twilight Zone to sections of Star Trek Voyager, the effects of the nothingness of space has been done. I really can not think of two things further apart in sci-fi than Star Trek and The Twilight Zone.

Where has the theme of people going insane due to the enormity of space been expressed in either of those shows?
Quote:
The nothingness of space is also comparable to the nothingness apparent on the sea when unable to find land, or fish, or any other living thing. That has caused rational murdering cannibals in the past. (I think it has in fact caused rational raping murdering cannibals, but I am not totally sure about the rape.) And as such is not exactly new.

Erm that supports my point. I said it had precedent in real life, but was something that hasn't really been explored in Television.
Quote:
Further there is a problem with the Reavers going insane because of the nothingness of space, as Jayne says, “Just looked like … more space.” Everyone in the Firefly solar system has to deal with that same nothingness because as we know, from being here on Earth, planets don’t look like something filling up space, they just look like bigger stars, and the “edge of space” in Firefly and Serenity is full of stars.

No more than the rest of us. It's quite specific that Reavers went to the edge of space, beyond civilisation and went mad, presumably from the isolation and literally thinking about the enormity of space. Most of us just don't think about it.
Quote:
But just because I like it doesn’t mean I have to argue that the explanation given is incorrect, it makes sense and is consistent with what we know, even if it is slightly more cliché than people going insane through isolation in nothingness.

You’re saying I'm only arguing against the PAX because I liked the original explanation.
Belittle my argument if you will, but it doesn't change the fact that my reservations against the PAX explanation is because I think it doesn't make sense, not because I liked the other one better.
Quote:
Once again, where is the loss of impulse control suggested? What part? What words? You say you only disagree with the origin, so where in the origin does it imply a lack of impulse control?

Erm, it's entirely implied. The implication of extreme uncontrollable aggression is a loss of inhibitions and impulse control.
Quote:
It just says that they are hyper-aggressive and the opposite of apathetic, those are things agreed with outside of the origin as well. Those are things that are supported more by the actions of Reavers than the origin.

No. They're actions point to sometimes very aggressive and scavenger like (raiding and so on). The PAX explanation implies constant 'hyper-aggression' as you put it.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
WE WAITED 18 YEARS FOR A REBOOT AND DISNEY IS GOING TO DO IT...AND THEN STERILIZE COMPANIONS???!
Tue, December 10, 2024 14:25 - 95 posts
Host the 2025 Browncoat Ball! - Request for Proposals
Mon, December 2, 2024 00:22 - 4 posts
Shiny New Year 2025 — Philadelphia, PA
Mon, December 2, 2024 00:18 - 1 posts
Joss was right... Mandarin is the language of the future...
Wed, November 27, 2024 09:32 - 35 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Tue, November 26, 2024 06:25 - 55 posts
Is Joss Whedon finished as a film maker, is his future destiny to be some muttering version of Brigitte Bardot, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen, Danny Glover?
Sun, November 24, 2024 06:15 - 13 posts
Bad writers go on strike, late night talk is doomed
Fri, November 22, 2024 13:49 - 22 posts
Here's how it was.....Do you remember & even mourn the humble beginnings?
Mon, November 18, 2024 09:38 - 13 posts
Serenity Rescued by Disney!
Fri, November 15, 2024 00:31 - 5 posts
What is your favourite historical or war film/television show???
Fri, November 8, 2024 07:18 - 37 posts
When did you join poll?
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:28 - 69 posts
Best movie that only a few people know about
Mon, November 4, 2024 07:14 - 118 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL