I wanna do this one more time: Was Mal wrong when he shot that surrendering guy in Serenity? by chrisisall

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Way I see it, you can't murder someone who's trying to kill you.

Crow was trying to KILL Mal. I don't get how some don't get that...

Actually, he was not. He was tied up and threatening to kill Mal. With no way of doing it right then and there.

I can see how you can declare blurred lines, what with neither party having recourse to a proper authority to legally deal with that threat, but it's still not the same as "he was actively trying to kill Mal right then".

As for the soldier, I will never ever find it justifiable. This is from the same source inside me that finds the death penalty despicable and wrong. Killing in revenge is a moral surrender to the darkess we profess to despise.

I think that is exactly what that scene was supposed to show: Mal going over the edge. That speech and that shot is his darkest moment. He doesn't come back to his senses until later around the kitchen table when he actually starts treating his crew like human beings again, as opposed to tools/obstacles.

I love Mal as a character, but he utterly IS a murderer, out of convenience.

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

Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:23 AM

Quote:
This is from the same source inside me that finds the death penalty despicable and wrong.

Well sure. I can be against the death penalty. In theory.

But when Quisling sells Norway out to the Nazis, you can guess where those nice good-hearted sentiments go.

They actually re-instated the death penalty just for him. So that just goes to show that even the most civilized people have limits of they're willing to put up with before they resort to killing.

Me, I draw the line at a number of places, but a big one is being a jackboot civilian killing piece of trash in a line of work intended to protect civilians and thus violating all kinds of oaths and ethics pertaining to not killing civilians.

Quote:
Killing in revenge is a moral surrender to the darkness we profess to despise.

Unifying darkness and light with minimal casualties is what the human experience is all about. Despising darkness is despising part of yourself. It's denying entirely valid emotional states, that we evolved to ensure our survival.

And sometimes, it is oh so very RIGHT to act on them. Because anything else would be less than human. It's like expecting a mother to not defend her children to the death.

Mal's a murderer. Doesn't make him wrong.

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

Tuesday, May 27, 2014 6:12 PM

OLDGUY

What Would Mal do ?

gotta disagree...Mal is a "killer" not a murderer..

he made that clear to the good young doctor in the pilot epi.

he has been a soldier..in which he was a killer

he has shot and killed men with guns held to Kaylee's head, and in the case of the Train job - there was a real threat made that was completely believable..as soon as they would set that monster free, he would come back to kill members of the crew and ultimately Mal...I didn't see that as even an execution, just finishing the fight.

it's a level of clear headed justice that this country in real life has long ago lost sight of, which is in great part why we have such evil living among us..openly...not even bothering to "lurk" any longer..just openly making youtube videos of what they plan to do and then doing it.

i'm not saying I wanna be Mal or even hang with the guy..although long from now when an oppressive govt has left me little liberty I might find his offering of free sky worth more than the rations given by my slave holders.

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

Tuesday, May 27, 2014 7:05 PM

THESOMNAMBULIST

Woah! Late to the fray here and some very interesting debates... I didn't read 'em all though.

To answer this question of:
"Was Mal wrong when he shot the surrendering guy in Serenity?"

Yep! It's uncool to kill peeps.

°...Well here I am.°

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

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 6:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Well sure. I can be against the death penalty. In theory.

There are plenty of people who are against it in practice.

Quote:

But when Quisling sells Norway out to the Nazis, you can guess where those nice good-hearted sentiments go.

They actually re-instated the death penalty just for him. So that just goes to show that even the most civilized people have limits of they're willing to put up with before they resort to killing.

And I find that shitty and sad of them.

"If something very bad happens to you, you will want to kill people, too!" doesn't seem like a very valuable argument in determining whether actions are morally right or wrong.

Quote:

Quote:
Killing in revenge is a moral surrender to the darkness we profess to despise.

Unifying darkness and light with minimal casualties is what the human experience is all about. Despising darkness is despising part of yourself. It's denying entirely valid emotional states, that we evolved to ensure our survival.

Emotional states are valid. Actions based on them are NOT all valid. The things we do in the height of trauma and emotion tend to not be proportionate, constructive, thought-through or necessarily compatible with our own long-term values.

People regret shit they DO all the time, they rarely have to regret shit they feel. Because feelings are valid but temporary.

Quote:

And sometimes, it is oh so very RIGHT to act on them. Because anything else would be less than human. It's like expecting a mother to not defend her children to the death.

That makes no sense. Self-defense from an immediate threat is entirely different from killing someone who is NOT an immediate threat, killing for revenge.

Killing for revenge may feel right. Doesn't mean it is right. It's a gratuitous act, an exertion of power to alleviate some lingering feeling of vulnerability. It's not a constructive act.

Quote:

Mal's a murderer. Doesn't make him wrong.

I disagree. Murder is pretty much the definition of wrong.

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

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 9:46 AM

Quote:
There are plenty of people who are against it in practice.

I like to keep my options open.

Am I somehow entitled to decide who lives and dies? To judge someone for what they've done? Definitely not. But if a person courts death, by killing others and bringing the possibility of retribution down on them, who am I to deny someone rushing headlong towards it?

The difference between the two of us is that you think that when someone stands down, the threat they pose has ended. But we're not talking about normal people. We're not talking about people like you, who would hesitate at the thought of killing anyone.

We're talking about people who DON'T hesitate, and WILL kill those who had never done any worse than try to live their lives. Because of the job, because of their boss, because of madness, because of their DUTY, the reasons are irrelevant.

But then you say, they're unarmed? They're not a threat? People like that are ALWAYS a threat. Because the threat isn't in the weapons they hold. The threat is in their minds and their attitude. They are far more dangerous than ANY weapon.

And if you let them go, they will kill again. These are not the kind of people who can reform. These are people who kill on order, or because they LIKE it, and believe themselves righteous for doing it.

And before you say it, yes, I know my own attitude means the exact same thing applies to me. I myself could be subject to a just retribution. And I'd welcome it.

Quote:
doesn't seem like a very valuable argument in determining whether actions are morally right or wrong.

Well, I'm just an amoral nutjob. What do I know about despising the darkness or morally right and wrong?

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

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 11:22 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Well, I'm just an amoral nutjob. What do I know about despising the darkness or morally right and wrong?

Let's change the movie just a tiny bit: What if the soldier had stayed hidden by playing dead? That's a sensible tactic for a soldier. When Mal grabs the corpse to chain it to Serenity, the "dead" body suddenly comes back to life and Mal, startled, shoots him dead, for real.

The soldier still is killed by Mal with only a tiny difference: Mal was startled by soldier. There isn't time for Mal to premeditate murder or use the soldier as an example to the crew of what will happen to them if they mutiny. Was Mal wrong in this new case?

Personally, I think it's more realistic than what was in the movie. (Joss does love too much his fake folksy Mal language.) I would have preferred to skip all the Mal speechifying: Mal does not explain his plan to the audience by talking to the crew and does not put down a mutiny. He is giving nobody any choices.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

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

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 11:25 AM

The soldier was dead to begin with, due to his own actions. The question of when he died isn't really consequential.

If he died from the anti-air-craft gun perforating the cockpit, if he died in the crash, if he died bleeding out from injuries, if he died surrendering to Mal, if he died because he played dead and tried to surprise the crew, if he waited out the crew and died from starvation in the wasteland of Haven with no civilization around him and no way off world, it doesn't matter. He was dead anyway.

Why should Mal shooting the soldier bother us when he was merely finishing off the job the Shepherd started? Book was responsible for the death, do we disagree with why Book killed the soldier? Do we think leaving the soldier alive to suffer or holding him captive would have been a better fate?

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

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 12:09 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

I agree that the soldier has to die. What I don't agree with is Joss having Mal use the soldier as an example of what will happen to the crew if they don't obey. Everything stops in the movie while Mal gives another speech, like he's addressing his troops and concerned about their morale. Then he underlines a point by executing a soldier. Mal really means business now, Jayne. You better shut your mouth or you're next.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

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

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 12:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
But then you say, they're unarmed? They're not a threat? People like that are ALWAYS a threat. Because the threat isn't in the weapons they hold. The threat is in their minds and their attitude. They are far more dangerous than ANY weapon.

And if you let them go, they will kill again. These are not the kind of people who can reform. These are people who kill on order, or because they LIKE it, and believe themselves righteous for doing it.

Reading this led me mentally straight to...

Quote:

And before you say it, yes, I know my own attitude means the exact same thing applies to me. I myself could be subject to a just retribution. And I'd welcome it.

... this. Thanks, I guess, for anticipating and addressing it right away.

In that case, I don't know that there is much left to discuss. You describe a world where you consider yourself to be the problem: a righteous killer in need of putting down. In a world of righteous killers needing to do the killing and then be killed themselves.

Because in your view, I don't see room for the "normal" people who hesitate to kill. Either they are failing in their duty to eliminate The Threat, or if not, they are The Threat themselves.

Rejecting that view seems to be the only way to break the cycle you describe. So I'll continue to do that.

Quote:

Well, I'm just an amoral nutjob. What do I know about despising the darkness or morally right and wrong?

I hadn't had the impression that you are either of those things.

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

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 12:21 PM

Quote:
Because in your view, I don't see room for the "normal"

Not involved. As they should be.

I'm not out to shock people out of where they live or undermine the choices they've made. They can live content.

If they reach out to this cynical and dark-hearted side of the world, they have to be knowing, it has to be wholehearted, and it has a high price. I can't live any other way. But other people, they can.

Quote:
Rejecting that view seems to be the only way to break the cycle you describe. So I'll continue to do that.

There's a balance in this world, and that is the balance.

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

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:37 PM

MIKER

Once I found Serenity

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

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Killing for revenge may feel right. Doesn't mean it is right. It's a gratuitous act, an exertion of power to alleviate some lingering feeling of vulnerability. It's not a constructive act.

And there's an important word there you don't seem to totally comprehend the meaning of: revenge.
Mal did NOT shoot that soldier out of revenge, he shot him out of expediency. And did him a kindness in the process (like Byte said, he was dead any way you look at, and starving out alone ain't fun). Yeah, Mal was on the ice cold edge losing it like that, but what would you have him do with the guy? Please tell us. Just don't say anything like "they could have tied him up & taken him with them using precious time they couldn't afford to waste" or "They could have left him food they didn't have to eat after they left" because both sound pretty gorram ridiculous...
And please stop saying 'revenge' in every post- sounds like a sermon, and sermons make me sleepy.

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

Wednesday, May 28, 2014 8:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OLDGUY:
in the case of the Train job - there was a real threat made that was completely believable..as soon as they would set that monster free, he would come back to kill members of the crew and ultimately Mal...I didn't see that as even an execution, just finishing the fight.

Quite. And let's not forget that Mal was still bleeding from a knife wound MEANT to KILL him... the momentum of the emotional reaction was still in flux, and Crow chose to overplay his weak and angry hand SEVERELY.
Like the man said to Han, "A Deathmark's not an easy thing to live with."
Mal just rid his crew of the Deathmark.
An ounce of Mal prevention is worth a pound of Crow/Niska cure, as it were.

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

Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:35 AM

I still would have wanted the soldier's intel, the ship's intel, any intel
I could get!
But there really wasn't time, I guess.

Intel: All of you see a lot of stuff that I missed. My next viewing of
BDM & BDS will be more interesting.

Locally, I'm introducing a couple of FF deprived neighbors to it. My
best friend is already crazy for Morena from another show. I just told
him, "Well, Firefly has more beautiful women!"

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

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

Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
And there's an important word there you don't seem to totally comprehend the meaning of: revenge.

*nod-nod* Sure. Go on.

Quote:

Mal did NOT shoot that soldier out of revenge, he shot him out of expediency. And did him a kindness in the process (like Byte said, he was dead any way you look at, and starving out alone ain't fun). Yeah, Mal was on the ice cold edge losing it like that, but what would you have him do with the guy? Please tell us. Just don't say anything like "they could have tied him up & taken him with them using precious time they couldn't afford to waste" or "They could have left him food they didn't have to eat after they left" because both sound pretty gorram ridiculous...

Yes, they could have just left him there, if they didn't have the time for anything else. (I sincerely doubt they took the time to evacuate every last shred of food on Haven.)

I don't really care if you think it's ridiculous, but killing out of expendiency is the same thing the Operative did. Different targets, same logic. It was convenient. Mal wouldn't have shot any surviving person on Haven, he shot the guy because he judged he deserved it. That, to me, is revenge.

Quote:

And please stop saying 'revenge' in every post- sounds like a sermon, and sermons make me sleepy.

I'll say it however often I like, so you best grab your blanket and cuddly bear.

I'm not out to convince you, btw, before you pull out any more Mal quotes. I'm merely participating in this conversation, so that pissy tone you're using, as if I've personally insulted you in some way and you need to impress upon me how stupid I am? Not really called for.

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

Thursday, May 29, 2014 10:08 AM

Quote:
(I sincerely doubt they took the time to evacuate every last shred of food on Haven.)

I think it's more like the food and drink probably burned with their homes. The place looked wrecked. And the surroundings were a wasteland. Not a good place to be marooned.

And that's if Reavers don't show up, which was suggested to be a problem (and also why the people of Haven even had that big anti-aircraft gun).

Quote:
Mal wouldn't have shot any surviving person on Haven

He didn't shoot Book, but yelled for Simon to hurry up and administer medical aid despite the fact he was clearly dying. Perhaps to try to comfort himself and Book.

Although if Book had asked Mal to make it fast, I don't think Mal would have refused. And I actually think Book might have been the only person on Haven Mal would have tried to give medical aid they didn't really have and couldn't afford. He actually probably would have shot other survivors to end their suffering.

In fairness, I don't think Mal shot the soldier to preemptively end his suffering. That was more of a unforeseen side benefit.

Quote:
he shot the guy because he judged he deserved it.

I think he shot the guy because it was necessary, for all inherent meanings of the word necessary in this case. Because of what the soldier did, because it's HUMAN to be upset to the point of rage by someone who did what that soldier did, because they couldn't take him along, because the soldier wasn't going to survive. Because a surrendered soldier would be in his way, this after Mal giving a speech about the consequences of that. Because the soldier wasn't trustworthy (look at what he did) and would remain a threat.

All of that.

Necessary isn't a moral qualifier. It was murder. I'm not disagreeing there. But it was murder in the same way capital punishment is murder. And I get you don't agree with capital punishment - I don't really either, because two wrongs don't make a right and since when is a bunch of people who WEREN'T THERE piecing together the evidence (which might be incorrect) and voting on a stranger's life somehow civilized and acceptable?

But the thing in this case is, WE were there. As the audience. We know what the soldier did, and so did Mal.

More technically, it's manslaughter because it wasn't really planned but was a crime of passion, provoked by the fact that the victim JUST MASSACRED AN ENTIRE FRIKKIN VILLAGE OF NONHOSTILES. Even if the guy was or could become repentant, how do you even live with that, and if he wasn't, we're back to him being completely unsympathetic and very dangerous and the cold facts of necessity.

Now, this isn't a war time situation, Mal can't be considered a member of any existing opposing military. At that point he himself is a civilian, despite still wearing the colours of his unit.

But for perspective, ask yourself if during the war you think Mal would have tolerated anyone under his command pulling the same sort of shit, or if he would've just shot them. See also the Dead or Alive script, where Mal kills a former browncoat he'd known in the war who had turned civilian-murdering bombing terrorist. And in that case, law enforcement looked the other way instead of bringing Mal up on charges, because of the nature of the crime the terrorist was killed for.

The short version of it is, while this was VERY personal, Mal didn't shoot the soldier out of revenge. He would have done the same to anyone who'd destroyed a town for political reasons. Quite frankly, I have trouble seeing that as anything but understandable righteous anger and moral decency. And that's why I don't think it was wrong.

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

Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:51 PM

Thanks Byte, you're my hero. You said all I am too, err... not good with speech to say!!

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

Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

*nod-nod* Sure. Go on.

that pissy tone you're using, as if I've personally insulted you in some way and you need to impress upon me how stupid I am? Not really called for.

Not meaning to sound pissy as much as show you how your personal philosophy, however commendable (and it IS commendable) does not easily define EVERY situation you come across. But Byte put it all better than I ever could a couple posts north.
And I DON'T think you're stupid, bro.

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

Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:02 PM

Quote:
however commendable (and it IS commendable) does not easily define EVERY situation you come across.

Few things do.

Even Jesus and one of the incarnations of Buddha killed people. And as philosophers they're thought to be the pinnacle of morality by a lot of people, whether or not you're at all religious. Both very anti-killing as well, I note.

AR's beliefs are valid, logically consistent, and a worthwhile endeavor. No killing at all would be a great goal for everyone. I'm not sure it's achievable - we kill to eat, and grow our food, we kill to defend ourselves from both illness and human and animal attackers. We kill some of our own cells every day, let alone terminate pregnancies for various fully justifiable reasons. Death and life are two sides of the same coin, just as light and dark. But as something to strive for both as a person and as a society, I can respect no killing, yes.

No-killing, as I said, balances with other workable moral frameworks out there. Morality can and often is relative, and sometimes an inflexible law is not sufficient to address all possible applications of morality. Sometimes, morality must be left up to personal judgement outside of law. Sometimes, a person who kills can and must still be innocent, and sometimes, even someone who commits intentional murder could still be considered free of wrong-doing.

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

Friday, May 30, 2014 8:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
however commendable (and it IS commendable) does not easily define EVERY situation you come across.

Few things do.

Even Jesus and one of the incarnations of Buddha killed people.

Jesus did? Was that in one of the apocryphal gospels, in his childhood? I vaguely recall reading about it, but I didn't think it was official canon, so to speak.

Quote:

AR's beliefs are valid, logically consistent, and a worthwhile endeavor. No killing at all would be a great goal for everyone. I'm not sure it's achievable - we kill to eat, and grow our food, we kill to defend ourselves from both illness and human and animal attackers. We kill some of our own cells every day, let alone terminate pregnancies for various fully justifiable reasons. Death and life are two sides of the same coin, just as light and dark. But as something to strive for both as a person and as a society, I can respect no killing, yes.

No-killing, as I said, balances with other workable moral frameworks out there. Morality can and often is relative, and sometimes an inflexible law is not sufficient to address all possible applications of morality. Sometimes, morality must be left up to personal judgement outside of law. Sometimes, a person who kills can and must still be innocent, and sometimes, even someone who commits intentional murder could still be considered free of wrong-doing.

I want to emphasize that I do not condemn all killing in all circumstances. I find abortion to be a tragic but justified killing, I wouldn't condemn anyone who killed necessarily in self-defense. I can get behind euthanasia if carefully crafted around consent and information.

I also understand mitigating psychological circumstances.

But any killing of people remains a tragedy and a violence on victim and perpetrator alike, to me. So if it is not avoided when not utterly necessary, I'm going to see it as a crime, as a perpetuation of abuse.

I really appreciate the discussion, even if we have different opinions.

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

Friday, May 30, 2014 2:27 PM

Quote:
Jesus did? Was that in one of the apocryphal gospels, in his childhood? I vaguely recall reading about it, but I didn't think it was official canon, so to speak.

Well, he WAS a revolutionary rebelling against Roman rule and hypocrites in his religious community. He talked about trading in swords for plows, but he also told them to grab their swords when he went to turn out the money lenders in the temple.

He told his followers to go grab people from the streets who wouldn't follow him and kill them in Luke 19:27. "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

A time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build. For everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven.

Christian beliefs. Ecclesiastes.

Thou shall not kill is one of the ten commandments, but it's also pretty clear there are exceptions to the rule.

What's more, if you follow their logic that Jesus was an incarnation of the old testament God... Implications.

And yeah, the one you mentioned, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, though I'm not sure that one is recognized by church authorities.

Quote:

But any killing of people remains a tragedy and a violence on victim and perpetrator alike, to me. So if it is not avoided when not utterly necessary, I'm going to see it as a crime, as a perpetuation of abuse.

Sure. I agree.

Just I think sometimes it isn't necessarily wrong. Still sad though I suppose. Although I'm a bit too pissed off still about the soldier in question to really feel sad about his lost chances or for his family.

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

Friday, May 30, 2014 6:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
Jesus did? Was that in one of the apocryphal gospels, in his childhood? I vaguely recall reading about it, but I didn't think it was official canon, so to speak.

Well, he WAS a revolutionary rebelling against Roman rule and hypocrites in his religious community. He talked about trading in swords for plows, but he also told them to grab their swords when he went to turn out the money lenders in the temple.

He told his followers to go grab people from the streets who wouldn't follow him and kill them in Luke 19:27. "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

A time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build. For everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven.

Christian beliefs. Ecclesiastes.

Thou shall not kill is one of the ten commandments, but it's also pretty clear there are exceptions to the rule.

What's more, if you follow their logic that Jesus was an incarnation of the old testament God... Implications.

Yikes.

Not being a Christian, I'm glad I don't have to try and reconcile his more peaceful messages with.. this.

Quote:

Quote:

But any killing of people remains a tragedy and a violence on victim and perpetrator alike, to me. So if it is not avoided when not utterly necessary, I'm going to see it as a crime, as a perpetuation of abuse.

Sure. I agree.

Just I think sometimes it isn't necessarily wrong. Still sad though I suppose. Although I'm a bit too pissed off still about the soldier in question to really feel sad about his lost chances or for his family.

He was a criminal participant in murder. It's not sympathy for his plight that motivates my feelings, necessarily.

But I think we both understand each other's view points pretty well by now. Mine strains against emotional and practical limits, yours harbors the trappings of a vicious cycle. There is no easy or perfect approach that will satisfy everyone.

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

Friday, May 30, 2014 7:53 PM

That last bit was very well put, AGENTROUKA.

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

Friday, May 30, 2014 9:26 PM

Quote:

Yikes.

Not being a Christian, I'm glad I don't have to try and reconcile his more peaceful messages with.. this.

In fairness, Oonjerah pointed out to me that Luke 19:27 is a parable where Jesus compares how people will have to look into his face on Judgement Day with that specific quote from a king who was doing all that killing...

but, uh, yeah. Judgement Day is some pretty hardcore blood bath torture stuff. And that's without getting into the tribulations, and the last battle against the army of the antichrist.

Quote:
But I think we both understand each other's view points pretty well by now. Mine strains against emotional and practical limits, yours harbors the trappings of a vicious cycle. There is no easy or perfect approach that will satisfy everyone.

Also agreed.

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

Friday, May 30, 2014 9:38 PM

Quote Bytemite quoting Jesus: He told his followers to go grab people from the streets
who wouldn't follow him and kill them in Luke 19:27. "But those enemies of mine who
did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'"

I love this sort of thing. Sorry I'm late.

I am no Bible authority, but I had to look that up. 'Cause if Jesus
said that, it would have been a very famous part of his story.

Luke 19:11-27 The Parable of the Ten Minas.
Jesus is reciting the parable in which "A man of noble birth went to
a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return."
It is the nobleman ordering the killings. But yes, I suppose it is
common for readers to see this as an instruction from Jesus to his
followers. Probably it's what Luke heard/felt.

Matthew 25:14-30 also tells The Parable of the Ten Minas. Very
different from above.

In that version, there is no mention of enemies or killing; there
is a journey, no mention of being appointed king. I'd interpret
Matthew's version to mean that Jesus will die and then return.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

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

Saturday, May 31, 2014 11:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
the last battle against the army of the antichrist.

He's a coward, and a pisspot.

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

Sunday, June 1, 2014 1:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
the last battle against the army of the antichrist.
He's a coward, and a pisspot.

Hmm? No, he actually rides at the front of what followers he has left against all the human followers of the anti-christ of which there are legion.

He then kills all his enemies by shouting at them with God's voice. It's pretty anti-climactic. Which after trashing the entire world and rendering it uninhabitable, and only a thousand humans survive the whole thing, I guess it would make sense for the earth's last gasp to be understated.

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

Sunday, June 1, 2014 4:12 PM

Oh, I meant the Anti-Christ was a coward & a pisspot.
And stupid too, seeing as he'll do all this knowing his outcome in the matter.

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

Sunday, June 1, 2014 9:05 PM

I guess the real and only relevant question here is:

Would Jesus shoot that surrendering guy in Serenity?
I mean ... if he were in Mal's situation.
.
.
OT, re: Bible.
A neighbor has a (recent?) Catholic Bible, very heavily annotated. Jesuit
style digging. It claims that "Luke" was written 90 years after Christ's death.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

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

Sunday, June 1, 2014 10:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Oonjerah:
I guess the real and only relevant question here is:
Would Jesus shoot that surrendering guy in Serenity?

Not if he wasn't under pressure to survive. I conjure either way he'd have no trouble sending that killer to Heaven, though (I don't believe in Hell, other than what we make here on Earth).

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

Monday, June 2, 2014 12:15 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Depends on whether you view individual moral judgement and vigilantism as valid ethical conduct, which I suspect you don't, and thus you probably believe that justice can really only be administered by a trial provided by a recognized government with legal jurisdiction.

Even if said government in this case would be corrupt as hell and almost certainly rule in favour of the civilian killing dickhead and against the misrepresented criminal cyber terrorists.

Crow was murder, though justifiable, the guy threatened them after trying to kill them. This after Mal offered the guy a way out without fighting.

For me justice does not come into the equation. Mal is simply not above doing immoral things when it suits him. That includes killing unarmed people, which is murder. This is after Mal tells Simon that if he was going to killing Simon would be awake, facing him and armed. Perhaps that was just for the Doc.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Monday, June 2, 2014 2:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
For me justice does not come into the equation. Mal is simply not above doing immoral things when it suits him. That includes killing unarmed people, which is murder. This is after Mal tells Simon that if he was going to killing Simon would be awake, facing him and armed. Perhaps that was just for the Doc.

Since Simon is not a gunslinger like Mal, it still would be murder.
But if River was on hand for this, maybe she'd just kill him with her mind.

... oooOO}{OOooo ...

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

Monday, June 2, 2014 8:16 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

You know what is also convenient as Mal killing "that guy"? For Joss Whedon to kill everyone in Haven.

Realistically, somebody would have survived, somebody would have the commonsense to stay in the mine or inside the buildings. Not everybody will stupidly stand in the open to be a target for the bullet with their name on it.

But with all townspeople ( but Book ) dead in a few overhead passes of a lone gunship strafing from the air, the movie moves faster.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

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

Monday, June 2, 2014 10:16 AM

Quote:
You know what is also convenient as Mal killing "that guy"? For Joss Whedon to kill everyone in Haven.

I'm not sure why the question of survivors on Haven would even come up, but in that case we can add another way for the soldier to die - killed by any survivors if Serenity left him with them.

The buildings looked completely trashed to me, as I already said. The mine... Maybe. Might also have collapsed depending on what kind of bombs were being dropped and how many entrances there are and how deep it is.

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

Monday, June 2, 2014 10:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:

For me justice does not come into the equation. Mal is simply not above doing immoral things when it suits him. That includes killing unarmed people, which is murder. This is after Mal tells Simon that if he was going to killing Simon would be awake, facing him and armed. Perhaps that was just for the Doc.

You're assuming that 1) "killing unarmed" is a specific determination of "murder" (it is not), 2) the Alliance pilot didn't have a pistol on him (unlikely), and 3) that Crow's efforts to kill Mal just prior to the trussing him up in front of an engine to get some concessions doesn't count as facing Mal while armed.

You'd get better mileage out of focusing on the fact the Alliance pilot was surrendering.

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

Monday, June 2, 2014 11:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
For me justice does not come into the equation. Mal is simply not above doing immoral things when it suits him. That includes killing unarmed people, which is murder.

Maybe you missed a piece of Firefly wisdom "When someone tries to kill you, you try an' kill 'em right back."
Mal was willing to ignore that until pushed to it by Crow.

I had a fight once where a kid got me in a headlock & banged my head into a wood door. I got out of the lock, twisted him about, got him in a similar headlock & banged HIS head into a brick wall, which ended the fight. So, m52, I guess I was wrong to use force in excess of what my attacker had used, eh? I should have banged HIS head into a wood door, right? I should have calmed my adrenaline surge and talked down my need for pugilistic irony... measured the situation more carefully... considered the law as it applies to personal combat...

Have you EVER had a fight in your life where blood was drawn?

Here are some simple rules of reality, bro:
Don't jump off a tall building if you don't want to die.
Don't fight a tiger bare handed if you don't want to die.
Don't tell a guy you just unsuccessfully tried to kill that you'll never stop until he's dead if you don't want to die.
Basically, once you set actions in motion, the consequences may or may not be to your liking.

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

Monday, June 2, 2014 2:00 PM

Quote:
Have you EVER had a fight in your life where blood was drawn?

Ahahaha, I suspect he has actually, he just has a weird sense of law and morality above and beyond what even most people have, and way beyond what shitstains like me got.

Actually I get military vibes from Nick to be truly honest. He's got that same sort of unbreakable rules attitude that they get drilled into them that can seem really contradictory to people inclined to not play by the rules.

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

Monday, June 2, 2014 2:06 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
You're assuming that 1) "killing unarmed" is a specific determination of "murder" (it is not), 2) the Alliance pilot didn't have a pistol on him (unlikely), and 3) that Crow's efforts to kill Mal just prior to the trussing him up in front of an engine to get some concessions doesn't count as facing Mal while armed.

You'd get better mileage out of focusing on the fact the Alliance pilot was surrendering.

In both cases those people were not a threat at the time in which Mal killed them. That is murder.

Can we understand why Mal killed them, yes. Does it change what it was, no.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Monday, June 2, 2014 2:13 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
For me justice does not come into the equation. Mal is simply not above doing immoral things when it suits him. That includes killing unarmed people, which is murder.
Maybe you missed a piece of Firefly wisdom "When someone tries to kill you, you try an' kill 'em right back."
Mal was willing to ignore that until pushed to it by Crow.

I had a fight once where a kid got me in a headlock & banged my head into a wood door. I got out of the lock, twisted him about, got him in a similar headlock & banged HIS head into a brick wall, which ended the fight. So, m52, I guess I was wrong to use force in excess of what my attacker had used, eh? I should have banged HIS head into a wood door, right? I should have calmed my adrenaline surge and talked down my need for pugilistic irony... measured the situation more carefully... considered the law as it applies to personal combat...

Have you EVER had a fight in your life where blood was drawn?

Here are some simple rules of reality, bro:
Don't jump off a tall building if you don't want to die.
Don't fight a tiger bare handed if you don't want to die.
Don't tell a guy you just unsuccessfully tried to kill that you'll never stop until he's dead if you don't want to die.
Basically, once you set actions in motion, the consequences may or may not be to your liking.

You did not do anything wrong in your fight. The fight was still going on, you were still in danger. Had you stomped on the guys head once the fight was done, that would have been to far.

As I said I can understand why Mal kill Crow, I can also understand why Mal knew someone was going to have to kill Dobson. Those reasons don't change what we call Mal's actions. They don't make Mal a good person in those instances.

I'm always amazed at the lengths people will go to save character and people they like from certain labels.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

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

Monday, June 2, 2014 2:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
You're assuming that 1) "killing unarmed" is a specific determination of "murder" (it is not), 2) the Alliance pilot didn't have a pistol on him (unlikely), and 3) that Crow's efforts to kill Mal just prior to the trussing him up in front of an engine to get some concessions doesn't count as facing Mal while armed.

You'd get better mileage out of focusing on the fact the Alliance pilot was surrendering.

In both cases those people were not a threat at the time in which Mal killed them. That is murder.

Can we understand why Mal killed them, yes. Does it change what it was, no.

Okay, agreed. I've even said that it is still murder.

But the unarmed thing and those poor helpless people Mal killed so immorally? Come on. No way.

For the pilot that's like saying a guy in a broken down tank that mowed over a bunch of pedestrians first is unarmed and harmless. He's still in an Alliance designed war machine at the time for cryin' out loud.

For Dobson that's like saying a guy who's trying to abduct a child for some seedy torture pr0n (government funded or not) and pointing a gun around when he's known to shoot on a hair-trigger is a cuddly teddy bear.

And for Crow... The guy couldn't be harmless and unarmed unless you literally sawed his arms off.

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

Monday, June 2, 2014 2:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I'm always amazed at the lengths people will go to save character and people they like from certain labels.

Well, I'm amazed at how institutions control our thinking to such a degree. A Cop shoots a kid he believes has a gun, that's acceptable. A Soldier shoots a kid he believes has a weapon, acceptable. Mal shoots a confirmed dirtbag killer not really caring if he might have a weapon or not, and he's a murderer.
But an institution finding said surrendering soldier guilty of treason against Parliament & multiple murders sentencing him to death is okay, because, y'know, a body of men with titles is so much more morally correct than a single principled one with no shiny badge or active military rank.
Ugh, I got a piece of sarcasm stuck in my teeth....

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

Tuesday, June 3, 2014 9:26 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

You guys have been far too harsh on the Alliance's soldiers. If the massacre of the townspeople of Haven happened in Baghdad, 2007, it would have been legal.

There is a classified US military video depicting the slaying in 2007 of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, clearly shows the slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement". www.collateralmurder.com/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

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

Tuesday, June 3, 2014 10:42 AM

Quote:
You guys have been far too harsh on the Alliance's soldiers. If the massacre of the townspeople of Haven happened in Baghdad, 2007, it would have been legal.

Because the US's steady march towards fascist authoritarianism and thus moving the goalposts on what is and isn't acceptable behaviour in terms of military conduct, it's interpretation of the Rules of Engagement, and interrogation/torture should be embraced whole-heartedly by it's citizens.

This should also be our primary consideration in determining whether an action was legal or ethical.

*RASPBERRY*

How about no. That shit don't fly.

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

Tuesday, June 3, 2014 11:35 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
You guys have been far too harsh on the Alliance's soldiers. If the massacre of the townspeople of Haven happened in Baghdad, 2007, it would have been legal.

*RASPBERRY*

How about no. That shit don't fly.

It would fly in Hollywood. Once the Alliance propagandist-screenwriters get to work, it will fly in the Alliance.

I've got a more outrageous and real example that turns the Alliance soldier that Mal kills into the hero. You can ridicule me it you wish. This one might have even been noticed by Joss Whedon because it happened in 1993 in the real world. Or, at least, Joss might have seen the movie. It is very similar to the Haven Massacre – it is the Battle of Mogadishu (1993). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

It has a helicopter shot down just like the Alliance gunship is shot down by Book. Thousands of people, mostly townspeople of Mogadishu, get wounded or even killed, just like townspeople of Haven.

Imagine the Alliance, rather than Americans, going into Mogadishu looking for the terrorist leader using the alias "Malcolm Reynolds". See the movie Black Hawk Down where 1000 Somalians die, which is even more people than died at Haven.

The few Americans that died were the heroes of the movie. High schools were named for them. The soldier that Mal kills will get a high school once the Alliance’s Hollywoodization of the Battle of Haven comes out.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

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

Tuesday, June 3, 2014 12:50 PM

Ah. You're talking about propaganda instead of what outsiders like us might say is moral/ethical.

In that case, yes, child-killing village massacring butchers have been hailed as heroes before, and probably will be again. And according to the Alliance, Mal is the real terrorist.

Doesn't mean that's right. But that point of view because of the inherent corruption we have seen in the Alliance and the real world will always exist.

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

Tuesday, June 3, 2014 1:58 PM

Byte, you GO, girl!

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

Tuesday, June 3, 2014 2:15 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Ah. You're talking about propaganda instead of what outsiders like us might say is moral/ethical.

In that case, yes, child-killing village massacring butchers have been hailed as heroes before, and probably will be again. And according to the Alliance, Mal is the real terrorist.

Doesn't mean that's right. But that point of view because of the inherent corruption we have seen in the Alliance and the real world will always exist.

Just a quick note: everyone, and I mean you, too, have assumed that the man Mal killed was a killer of the townsfolk. Everybody is assuming he's either pilot or weapons officer or ship commander. He is none of those. He was just a military deserter. He was a stowaway. That's why he survived. He was not with the crew. He was in the back. He thought he could sneak away when the gunship landed on moon called Haven. When he pops up, Mal kills him to underline a point so that even that jackass, Jayne, will understand. Mal is a very troubled man.

See how easy it is to make Mal into the bad guy? And nobody, not even Joss, can prove from what is in the movie or comics that the man Mal killed was not some conscientious objector who was deserting by stowing away in the gunship.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

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

Tuesday, June 3, 2014 2:35 PM