Hero (308)

[Arative]

Oh right, I forgot all about those French resistance suicide bombers. Thanks for reminding me

Well historical fact has French, Jewish, Dutch resistance members suicide bombing both civilian and miltary targets during ww2. So yeah I would say you forgot about them or just didn't know about them. There were also secret tribunals that tried, convicted and executed collaborators, much like we saw in Collaborators.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that RDM is commenting on German occupied France? So the Cylons are NAZIs? Well, I feel better now.

No, he really isn't commenting on it but he did use it a basis of an idea for the storyline, at least according to him and forgive me if I will take his word over your obviously bias interpretation of the show.

Like many conservatives, I USED to enjoy the show immensely. I have been a huge evangelist for it. However, like me, conservative fans (such as Jonah Goldburg) who liked the show because BSG was a metaphor for modern day clash of civilizations, see the show lurching left just like I do. The fact that I see it and you don't probably says more about you than it does me.

You're right, I don't see leftist conspiracies in everything. But then I never saw the show as a modern day clash civilizations. I saw the show as drama based on the human condition.

I see you are all knowing now.

Why yes I am, thank you for acknowledging this, your life will be much easier now.

Now who's interpreting what the show is about. You people are unbelievable! You hammer me for projecting and then you project something that is completely indefensible. If the show is not commentary on modern day events and instead is culling from past conflicts (a completely indefensible position but hey, I'll go with it), then why show suicide bombing, why go with the "misunderstood enemy" theme?

I'm not interpreting the show. I'm telling what the creator of the show said himself, that a lot of the material that you claim is a commentary about Iraq actually is based on what happened in the past during the Nazi occupation of France and Holland. That fact that it is still relevant today should tell you something about a central theme in the show. Does humanity deserve to survive? We are still repeating the mistaked made 60 years ago, this in my opinion is the commentary RDM is trying to make. Only on the shallow surface does it seem to be a left or right bias.

I fail to see how culling from past conflicts is completely indefensible. Have you ever picked up a history book? Resistance fighters suicide bombing is right out of the French and Dutch reisistance of the Nazi occupation during WW2. This is historical fact.

I would say that the "misunderstood enemy" as you put it, is RDM's way of showing the audience that not everything is black and white, not everything is good and evil. Again, central theme of the show, Does humanity deserve to survive? If the colonials commited genocide, does it deserve to survive? Of course to believe killing all cylon's is genocide, you have to believe they are more than just machines, which is another argument entirely.

RDM is showing another side of the enemy to make them more than one dimensional killer robots. Showing that the biolons are not just the enemy but beings that can have emotions. Showing that its not just us or them, not just with us or against us.

[ToasterOnFire]

Beeblebrox, your argument is basically "The writers obviously are doing X because I think so and these others think so even though the writers have made no such statement. I'm obviously right and if you don't agree with me you deserve to be insulted." It's one thing to argue that an artist intended X, it's another thing altogether to insist that the artist intended X and that all other interpretations are wrong, especially without such a statement from the artist. So you'll have to forgive me if I ask for a little more concrete evidence for such an exclusive argument.

But you're welcome to continue to insult me, I'll just be sure to pass over your posts in the future. Too bad, it might have been an interesting dialog.

Oh and for the record, it's Ms.

[Beeblebrox]

Well historical fact has French, Jewish, Dutch resistance members suicide bombing both civilian and miltary targets during ww2. So yeah I would say you forgot about them or just didn't know about them.

Sorry if I don't take your word for it Arative. My post graduate degree is only in teaching and my wife was only a history and literature major and middle school teacher but neither of us recall suicide bombing as a WWII resistance technique. Please cite some examples (just a half dozen or so will do) of French, Jewish, or Dutch resistance members strapping bombs on themselves and killing civilians as a means of fighting the war. That is the context in which "suicide bombing" has to be understood (as opposed to the more traditional "suicide mission" which has always been a reality of war.)

No, he really isn't commenting on it but he did use it a basis of an idea for the storyline, at least according to him and forgive me if I will take his word over your obviously bias interpretation of the show.

So take his word over my own lying eyes and ears, eh? Come on, the guy is dissembling and you're buying it hook, line, and sinker.

If I write a script about a sinless lion who sacrifices himself at the hand of an evil witch in order to redeem a bad boy; and then am asked if the movie is some veiled Christian allegory, I say "no, it is just an ageless story about the human condition, what do you believe? Do you say to yourself, "yeah, I guess the writer is correct, the Lion isn't Jesus and the witch is not supposed to be Satan. Or do you say, I think the writer is trying to peddle his own world view and doesn't want people to know it.

The problem is, RDM is obviously writing standard leftist moral relativism into BSG of late and he is just trying to fend off the criticisms that his show has veered left. So NO, if he is denying that current world affairs are not being woven into his scripts, I don't believe him one bit.

...the creator of the show said himself, that a lot of the material that you claim is a commentary about Iraq actually is based on what happened in the past during the Nazi occupation of France and Holland.

Uh huh. Fine. Believe what you will. Yeah, stem cell research, suicide bombings of civilians, use of bioweapons, etc. are all WWII themes.

That fact that it is still relevant today should tell you something about a central theme in the show... We are still repeating the mistaked made 60 years ago

Sorry, I don't follow your line of thinking. How exactly are we repeating the same mistakes we made 60 years ago? a.)what mistakes? and b.) since the show is not about Iraq, how can it be a commentary on repeating mistakes?

...this, in my opinion, is the commentary RDM is trying to make. Only on the shallow surface does it seem to be a left or right bias.

He is making the case poorly then and it is even more shallow than you are saying my case is. If his intention is to comment on WWII then he needs to lose the modern liberal catch phrases and moral relativism. NAZIs were pure evil and we didn't need to understand the tortured past of Hitler in order to firebomb German cities. Since that was true then it should be true WRT the Cylons if, in fact this series is allegorical to NAZI Germany.

Resistance fighters suicide bombing is right out of the French and Dutch reisistance of the Nazi occupation during WW2. This is historical fact.

As I said earlier, please enlighten us with examples of the thousands of civilians killed by resistance fighters walking into crowded civilian gathering places and pulling the cord.

I would say that the "misunderstood enemy" as you put it, is RDM's way of showing the audience that not everything is black and white, not everything is good and evil. Again, central theme of the show, Does humanity deserve to survive?

YOU say it is the central theme of the show. That is your interpretation. And secondly, obviously everything is not black and white and to paint me into that corner is your own little version of black and whitism.

Still if that IS the theme of the show then it is one of the most idiotic themes I have ever heard of given the context of the show. We already know that RDM believes that despite the fact that the Cylons killed billions of people, including innocent children, that they are worthy of Helo's protection. So I have to assume that RDM believes that humanity is at least as worthy of saving as the Cylons are. If not, then he is beyond help. Had the show started with humanity wiping out a couple million Cylons, then running for their lives, this might be an interesting question, but this is not the show we are watching. It is some other, as yet unproduced show.

Of course to believe killing all cylon's is genocide, you have to believe they are more than just machines, which is another argument entirely.

No, this is not a different argument. I have stated in another thread that whether they are machines or sentient, all Cylons that are bent on the destruction of the human race should be wiped out. End of story.

If the enemy sends a 12 man squadron to kill you and instead you kill them how is that okay but if the enemy sends a million men to kill every last man, woman and child in your country, you hesitate because this might be considered genocide??!!

RDM is showing another side of the enemy to make them more than one dimensional killer robots.

Fine, I have no problem with showing that the enemy as more than 1D. The problem is that being 3D does not make the Cylons any less evil. They still need to be eradicated, pathological hang-ups and all. Understanding that Jeffry Dahmer is just like anyone else except for that whole canibalism thing doesn't get him off the hook does it?

This goes to the heart of the problem in fighting wars in the modern media era. Making the enemy sympathetic is NOT A GOOD THING if you want to defend yourself with conviction. This is why the military is trained to be dispassionate. The second they start getting all emotional about the enemy is the second they are dead.

[lethalfang]

Sure, this show does have relevance to the Iraqi war, but mostly the first two episodes in Season 3.
So what? What's the problem of asking questions of current event in a metaphorical way? Some of the best literatures in Western literal history are done in metaphors.
It gives you a perspective of the mentality of the suicide bombers. Why do they do what they do?
Many Iraqis are fighting to push the US troops out, and NOT all of them are Islamic extremists. Some of them are, but some others are less religious, more nationalist, who just wants Iraqis, not foreigners, to determine their own fate.
Sol Tigh, "we have sent men on suicide missions before. What's the difference?"
The Chief, "there are things you just don't do, even in war."
Again, two conflicting views from two brave "good guys."
Is suicide bombing acceptable? Tigh thinks so, because it's no different from soldiers dying in high-risk missions. The Chief thinks it's wrong. What do YOU think?

[lethalfang]

Religious terrorism is certainly no Islamic invention.
There was a brief all-out terrorism that occurred China in the 19th century.
They are known as the Boxer Rebellion.
China was under occupation by Western powers and Japan in the late 19th century. China's imperial court was corrupt, and their military defenses weak and outdated, and the government had no choice but to make forced concessions to Western (plus Japanese) interest. Public discontent against foreigners and foreign culture has been mounting for decades since the first conflict with UK 70 years earlier.
It started out as sporadic non-coordinated resistance movement around different parts of the country, then it started to grow. It had eventually gorwn to tens of thousands of followers, who essentially invented their own religions, such that some believe if they practice their thing, their bodies will be impenetrable to Western bullets.
The Boxers are horrible, perhaps the most horrible organization in history of China. They killed foreigners indiscriminately. They killed "collaborators." They killed Chinese who are pro-Western in any way. They destroyed anything with any connection to the West.
However, many locals felt they are necessary in resisting the foreign occupation.
Eventually, an alliance of eight Western nations (including Japan) mounted an offensive to destroy the Boxers rebellions. However, Many soldiers (especially from Germany) went on to looting rampage after the military conflict. That had certainly added another bad taste in the mouth of Chinese people.

Why did I post this?

Because I believe it's a historical lesson, that terrorism is INEVITABLE during a foreign military occupation, when the occupation is prolonged and unpopular with the locals. If there is no local religion that condones armed resistance (Buddhism is an extremely peaceful religion that condemns ALL forms of killings under ALL circumstances), people will invent new religion to justify their extreme form of terrorist resistance.

[Beeblebrox]

Beeblebrox, your argument is basically "The writers obviously are doing X because I think so and these others think so even though the writers have made no such statement.

Ah, but they have made a statement, in fact, multiple statements. Their show is their statement. I have talked to many conservatives who are past fans of the show and they all agree with me that the show has tilted severely left of late. I don't expect liberals to see this tilt but trust me, it's there, and in spades.

"I'm obviously right and if you don't agree with me you deserve to be insulted."

No one deserves to be insulted if they are honestly engaging in the debate. If you think you were insulted when I termed people "blind" for not seeing the political overtones in the show then I apologize. Of course, you won't mind if I point out that you called me "arrogant" in the first paragraph of the first post you made about my comments.

It's one thing to argue that an artist intended X, it's another thing altogether to insist that the artist intended X and that all other interpretations are wrong, especially without such a statement from the artist.

They could very well be right although I have not really heard a cogent counter argument except that the artist has not admitted to his leftward tilt. This, however, is not enough for me to be convinced given the transparent and often ham-fisted left-leaning plotlines of late.

By the way, saying that my view is wrong because it is an "interpretation" is not really an argument is it? Proving that the story lines are not left-leaning would be. So far, I have heard nothing on this point.

So you'll have to forgive me if I ask for a little more concrete evidence for such an exclusive argument.

Let me restate my argument then.

The writers:

a.) originally had an obvious metaphorical overtone of the current war on Islamic Jihadists. This has been written about extensivly in the entertainment and political press for the last two years. In fact, the center/right political overtone is one reason that, up until recently, conservatives have gravitated to the show. I have already cited examples from the press proving this point.

b.) The occupation plot arc (see previous Podhoretz comment on this), the torture plot, the suicide bombing plot, the "killing-the-genocidal-enemy-is--also-genocide" plot, the "Why do they hate us so much" plot, the "we started the war by spying" plot, the "let Helo get a pass for treason" plot, etc. are all examples of leftist political viewpoints. I wish that the writers had produced a counterpoint to at least some of these but NO WHERE did any character step up and take a protagonist position against any of these liberal leaning plotlines.

As a closing observation, I have to mention that my insider source in Hollywood has told me that the liberals in his firm located in Studio City are overjoyed at how the recent plot-lines in BSG are "challenging the know-nothing red state hicks" that watch the show. In addition to my own "interpretation" of recent scripts, I accept the Hollywood liberal's assessment as well.

[lethalfang]

b.) The occupation plot arc (see previous Podhoretz comment on this), the torture plot, the suicide bombing plot, the "killing-the-genocidal-enemy-is--also-genocide" plot, the "Why do they hate us so much" plot, the "we started the war by spying" plot, the "let Helo get a pass for treason" plot, etc. are all examples of leftist political viewpoints. I wish that the writers had produced a counterpoint to at least some of these but NO WHERE did any character step up and take a protagonist position against any of these liberal leaning plotlines.

That's simply a misrepresentation of the purpose.
These are exactly the questions posed by the show, for you to be answered.

Genocide against a race that has committed genocide IS genocide. Regardless of the reasons for genocide, genocide is genocide.

There IS a reason Cylons hate us so much. The show does not imply that genocide against humans is justified for their hate, but the Cylons WERE NOT created to hate humans.

In Helo's case, soldiers are trained to follow orders, but a line from the movie "A Few Good Men" comes to mind when I thought of his situation. Jack Nicholson's "you cannot handle the truth" was famous, but the most profound quote was at the end of the movie.
Downey, "I don't understand. Colonel Jessep said he ordered the Code Red. What did we do wrong? We did nothing wrong!"
Dawson, "...yeah we did. We were supposed to fight for people who couldn't fight for themselves. We were supposed to fight for Willy."

Some ideologues simply do not want these questions asked, because there definitely IS a moral ambiguity in such decisions, yet the ideologues are self-righteous. The ideologues believe what they do is absolutely the right thing to do, because they view the world as black and white, e.g. either right or wrong. Having their decisions to be questioned on moral basis simply bothers them.

[Beeblebrox]

Sure, this show does have relevance to the Iraqi war, but mostly the first two episodes in Season 3.
So what? What's the problem of asking questions of current event in a metaphorical way? Some of the best literatures in Western literal history are done in metaphors.

Who said there is a problem? My complaint was not that the show was a metaphor but that it veered left this season. This assertion was met with derision with multiple people saying I was reading political commentary into the scripts. Thanks for being the first person to acknowledge what I have been saying. I would agree that the occupation story arc is a metaphor for the Iraq war but that is not my complaint nor is it the extent of the political commentary of the show. The first two seasons were obviously (but some here claim coincidentally) a corollary to the war against Islamic jihadism. The last two episodes were not necessarily related to the war in Iraq itself but certainly they were a return to the Islamic jihad metaphor (but inexplicably, took the opposite view on the GWOT from the first two seasons.)

It gives you a perspective of the mentality of the suicide bombers. Why do they do what they do?

The problem is that BSG did no such illumination in the occupation storyline. The Islamic suicide bomber is brainwashed from an early age to believe that he or she will go to paradise for killing the infidel. They believe that all of us are equally their enemy and all equally deserving of death. Given that the Cylons were originally cast as the jihadists, it would have made more sense for the writers to somehow put one of them in a position to carry out a suicide bombing. If the fleet had somehow come across a Cylon settlement, taken it over and put it under their occupation then the metaphor that had been previously established would have held up. But by putting the humans in the role of Iraqi and the Cylons in the role of American occupier, the writers backed themselves into a corner that resulted in a moronic political commentary.

Many Iraqis are fighting to push the US troops out, and NOT all of them are Islamic extremists. Some of them are, but some others are less religious, more nationalist, who just wants Iraqis, not foreigners, to determine their own fate.

Lethal, you sound like a follower of historical world events so you would know that the Sunni want us to stay and the Shia want us to leave. The Shia are supported by the Shia state of Iran and it is obvious that the Iraqi Shia are fighting as proxies of Iran. So this is far from the black and white issue that you say it is. There are three major factions in Iraq and all of them have their own interests. Two of those groups want us to stay and the third wants us out. It is in Iran's interest for us to leave but if we do then the Shia will control Iraq, something that neither the Kurds nor the Saudis will abide.

Sol Tigh, "we have sent men on suicide missions before. What's the difference?"
The Chief, "there are things you just don't do, even in war."

Well, this interchange was disengenous at best on Tigh's part. I seriously doubt that he ever sent a girl into a civillian location with dynamite straapped to her chest. A "suicide mission" is a far cry from a "suicide bombing".

Is suicide bombing acceptable? Tigh thinks so, because it's no different from soldiers dying in high-risk missions. The Chief thinks it's wrong. What do YOU think?

The chief is right because he knows that there is a major difference between the two types of "missions". One is an effort to kill enemy combatants and the other is to bring terror to the civilian population.

Now, even though the writers failed to flesh out the distinction between the two, that is not really a major complaint of mine. The problem with the whole occupation story arc is that the writers cast the Cylon occupiers as the same as American liberators in Iraq. It was a very deceptive piece of anti-Iraq-war propaganda.

[lethalfang]

Replying to your last point, that is exactly the point of exchange between Tigh and Chief.
Tigh supported the suicide bombing in the police academy. His reasoning is this, you may die in a high-risk military mission getting blown up. You may die by strapping explosives to your chest. In the end, you die. What difference does it make?
Tigh's opinions is that, sure, there are collateral damages, but we don't have any military hardware to meet the Cylons head on. This is the only way we can resist, and maybe, just maybe, this will drive the Cylons out.

Added via edit: Sure, this may not be the most honorable way to resist, but at least this is a way to resist. Yeah, many humans will die in our less-than-honorable attacks, but the humans will risk extinction if we meet the Walking Toasters head on.
If that line of thinking is not okay, then why is genocide against Cylon okay?
For the record, I would've supported the plan to wipe out the Cylons. I agree with Rosalin, "sure, our children may hate us for it, but at least we know it's OUR children who will hate us."
My point is, I'll do it, but I'll do it KNOWING that I'm bending our moral values. I agree that Helo in this case may be a leftist ideologue, however, I also agree that he does have a valid point. Personally, I'll wipe out the Cylons, and then apologize later.

I'm aware that there are countless interests in Iraq right now. It's so complex there that, I really do not fully understand the situation, but one thing which is true is that, not all people who are fighting against the US hated US to start with. Sporadic criminal acts by even a few individuals can rile up a large population who may have questioned the US invasion in the first place. The invasion is not the only event that led them to the extreme route, but it's a fuse that pushed some of them over the top. And no, it's not all black-and-white. I'm sure many of these groups (if not most) saw the US invasion which took out the strong man, as an opportunity to assert their own will to the country. But the point is, the peasants who are doing the fighting on the streets simply want the US military out.

Speaking of suicide bombings on behalf of radical Islamic teachings, I've cited an example in China in the 19th century of people turning terrorists, who had no serious religion prior to their movement. Instead, they invented their own religion to organize a terrorist resistence movement.

[GateShip One]

The problem is that BSG did no such illumination in the occupation storyline. The Islamic suicide bomber is brainwashed from an early age to believe that he or she will go to paradise for killing the infidel. They believe that all of us are equally their enemy and all equally deserving of death. Given that the Cylons were originally cast as the jihadists, it would have made more sense for the writers to somehow put one of them in a position to carry out a suicide bombing. If the fleet had somehow come across a Cylon settlement, taken it over and put it under their occupation then the metaphor that had been previously established would have held up. But by putting the humans in the role of Iraqi and the Cylons in the role of American occupier, the writers backed themselves into a corner that resulted in a moronic political commentary.

Since when were the Cylons the Jyhadists? I think you're assuming too much about the Cylons. They don't represent any particular group of people here on Earth. If anything, they're an amalgam of many different groups and people from throughout history.

I can't for the life of me understand why you think BSG is so black and white, so US vs the Middle East. I've seen every episode of BSG multiple times and I never get that message. I always equate BSG to the original Star Trek series; using science fiction to tell stories about the human condition, human morality, humanity's failings, etc...

[Beeblebrox]

Replying to your last point, that is exactly the point of exchange between Tigh and Chief.
Tigh supported the suicide bombing in the police academy. His reasoning is this, you may die in a high-risk military mission getting blown up. You may die by strapping explosives to your chest. In the end, you die. What difference does it make?
Tigh's opinions is that, sure, there are collateral damages, but we don't have any military hardware to meet the Cylons head on. This is the only way we can resist, and maybe, just maybe, this will drive the Cylons out.

Fair enough and I have absolutely no problem with the interchange. My problem is that in the context of the Cylon/American occupation storyline, the writers are engaging in dishonesty:

1. There is no historical basis for members of western cultures using suicide bombing as a resistance technique. The writers seem to want to confuse the viewer with the notion that suicide bombing is not unique to islamic Jihadists.
2. Desperate Iraqis under the occupation of the US in Iraq are not engaging in suicide bombing against US troops but rather, against the civilian population. The writers on this point are attempting to convince the viewer that suicide bombers in Iraq are blowing up combatants. They are not.
3. Although the writers of BSG used the term "insurgency" to describe the New Capricans in order to make a direct metaphor to the Iraq situation, the NC situation is, as you say, no where near the complexity of why we are in Iraq. The BSG writers make a shallow and obvious comparison to Iraq as a cheap shot and do nothing to try to show the complexity of the situation we are facing there.

Sure, this may not be the most honorable way to resist, but at least this is a way to resist. Yeah, many humans will die in our less-than-honorable attacks, but the humans will risk extinction if we meet the Walking Toasters head on.

I don't really care if it is honorable or not. That is not my concern. My complaint is the ham-fisted effort on the writer's part to make a connection between the American occupation and the Cylon occupation as well as the rationalization for suicide bombing.

To watch the episodes in this story arc one would believe that when under occupation, it is just fine and dandy to use suicide bombing as a means of resistance. So we are now to sympathize with terrorists because they are just trying to get out from under the thumb of the eeevil American/Cylon occupiers.

If that line of thinking is not okay, then why is genocide against Cylon okay?

If the bombing plot was presented outside of the metaphorical context of the Iraqi "occupation", then I would have no problem with it whatsoever. However, suicide bombing as a resistance technique is stupid when divorced from the Iraq political commentary being made in the show. Indeed, it probably would not have even been included outside of the iraq context because it would have been unbelievable. The whole suicide bombing concept in BSG appears to have been shoehorned into the script as a liberal statement not as a way of furthering the story.

For the record, I would've supported the plan to wipe out the Cylons. I agree with Rosalin, "sure, our children may hate us for it, but at least we know it's OUR children who will hate us."
My point is, I'll do it, but I'll do it KNOWING that I'm bending our moral values. I agree that Helo in this case may be a leftist ideologue, however, I also agree that he does have a valid point. Personally, I'll wipe out the Cylons, and then apologize later.

I don't think it bends ANY moral values to kill the enemy nor do I think that Helo had any level of "valid" point. He made a point but it was childish and naive. The Cylons are, in toto, a war mongering race of replicants and machines. If it is okay to blow up a resurrection ship with thousands of Cylons on board why is it any worse to kill all Cylons trying to wipe them out? Is there some number of Cylons above which Rosalyn should not go in her effort to rid herself of the enemy?

[Beeblebrox]

Since when were the Cylons the Jyhadists? I think you're assuming too much about the Cylons. They don't represent any particular group of people here on Earth. If anything, they're an amalgam of many different groups and people from throughout history.

That, Gateship, is your opinion and, may I be so bold as to point out, a poorly informed one. What "different group and people from throughout history" are hell-bent on the extinction of western civilization aside from Islamic Jihadists? What "different group and people from throughout history" have a religious vehemence to destroy any who do not believe what they believe except the Islamic Jihadist?

I can't for the life of me understand why you think BSG is so black and white, so US vs the Middle East.

There is that term again, "black and white", I do not think it means what you think it means. If something is a metaphor then it relates to something else. In this case, most commentators saw the series as direct metaphor for the GWOT. The religious Cylon zealots who believe their god has given them marching orders to wipe out the colonist infidels is pretty darn close to modern day events.

It was a good idea while it lasted but it looks as though TPTB came under too much pressure to move away from the Jihad metaphor or amassed too much liberal guilt and decided to fall back to the predictable "us bad, them not so bad/misunderstood", moral relativism that is common liberal thinking in Hollywood these days. I fully expect defeatism to be the next theme in BSG if things keep going the way they are.

[shernernum]

Being a conservative myself I must say that I have been a little worried at different points about the direction that the show was going when presenting something that may have been a little bit of a hot button issue, but for the most part as episodes have finished, what I have seen was much more just a presentation of the issue without a specific firm stance taken on one side or the other. Yes, when watching this show I have thought about abortion, stem cell research, war, terrorism, etc etc....but instead of taking a definitive position one way or the other, what the show seems to do much more often is leave the question open. It is meant to get people to think, to assess their own position on an issue, to possibly even ask what their response would be in a particular situation.

I have three comments to make Beeblebrox and then I will be done with this particular thread because it is making my eyes hurt.
1. For someone who is upset with the show, doesn't want to watch it anymore, or thinks it is showing a bias, you are spending a lot of effort to try to get other people to see things your way...If you are so convinced you are right, then you wouldn't worry what others have to say about it. It reminds me of "Private Parts" in which the people who hated Howard Stern (who I dislike as well) listened even longer than those who liked him because "they wanted to hear what he will say next."

2. You accused someone on here of Sophism earlier, and from what I can tell you are accusing someone of something that you yourself are doing. Sophism is empty rhetoric where you try to convince people that what you are saying is truth, not because you have anything definitive to back it up, but because you can present yourself more convincingly and your argument "sounds" better.

3. You made the comment that just because RDM says he is not making a statement you will not believe him, because he is lying and you can see it with your own eyes. You back up your point by then alluding to the Chronicles of Narnia, saying that it would be the same thing if C.S. Lewis denied that it was an attempt to portray a Christian image. The argument sounds good except for one problem...as far as I can tell Lewis would probably not have claimed that, and he is probably, aside for the current Roman Catholic Pope, the most prolific religious Christian writer of the past 100 years..ie Mere Christianity, Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce, A Grief Observed.....etc...etc...The example really doesn't work.

[Maj.Tahn]

Beeblebrox is entitled to his opinion. Many of us disagree with him, and there are those of us who do agree with him. "What I love about Battlestar Galactica (although I didn't care for the New Caprica story arc & the writers senseless decision to destroy the Pegasus) is it really makes you think!"

[Nolamom]

Thanks for reminding me of just a few more reasons that the writers need to break their cocaine habit and go back to something like just beer or coffee for their fix.
.

No one deserves to be insulted if they are honestly engaging in the debate.

How about insulting folks that aren't involved in the debate? Have your read the forum rules - including the ones about respecting production crew members? Seems to me that this would apply to writers. Anyone with a post-graduate degree would have familiarized themselves with them, wouldn't they? But hey, don't ask me, I'm just working on my PhD dissertation.

By the way, shades of grey do not imply complete moral relativism. Rather, the concept of that of degree. There is still right and wrong. When little Billy takes a cookie from the cookie jar before dinner, that's wrong. However, it's not an executable offense. Shades of grey. Do you have one punishment to fit every crime or do you have a sliding scale of punishments to fit a wide range of crimes from the minor to the major? Also, shades of grey allows for *reasons* for why a crime or an action is committed. Jean Valjean steals a loaf of bread. Why? Because his sister's child is starving. Mitigating circumstances? Not to the French justice system - 20 years hard labor! Black and white. Is that fair? Absolutely not.