Pegasus (210)

[LCD2YOU]

That is true. Entertainment, no matter how thought-provoking it may be, is always about emotional manipulation. That we the viewers feel such strong, complex emotions only bespeaks the talent of this writing team.

Which is why I watch the show.

And I think your original post, where you first raised this issue, have a fair point. If the show elicits such contradicting reactions, what then does it really say about us, the viewers? When we pass judgment on these fictional characters, what criteria do we use?

I try to use three criteria. The first is of course my own. The second is the POV of the character or group in question. The third is the POV of others around them.

That is why I can see things from the POV of the Pegasus crew. Now keep in mind that there's the "crew" and then there's Cain, Thorne and others who are actively persuing a rather dubious methodology.

It is from this perspective that I appreciate your trying to see things from BSP crew's POV. It is also from this perspective, however, that I argue that our visceral responses have no place in this discussion, and that our opinion on Cylons' claim to humanity is not the central issue -- which is why likening these issues is fallacious.

But our treatment of the crew of the Pegasus is. If we are going to climb all over the crew of the Pegasus for their actions and be unforgiving on actions that could be from not knowing, ignorance and willful ignorance comes later, what really is happening then there is no way for the crew of the Pegasus to be anything but unforgiving to the Cylons.

Ultimately how we respond to the crew of the Pegasus says alot abut us too.

Laura Roslin has never met a Cylon she didn't want to space, or so it seems. One could even argue she was no better than the BSP crew, but I would disagree. One of the reasons is that I've always found her acting out of the concern for the greater good. More salient to the point, however, is that she seems to genuinely believe that a Cylon is only a "thing" -- I certainly could recall no incident where she has considered them to be anything more than that.

Oh, she is better than the crew of BSP. The crew made several errors in judgement in the way they went about things. Yes, one could say they were doing it for the greater good but I don't by that. They became the enemy they were so wanting to destroy.

But I say that is from their experiences and what they knew. That is all forgivable in the context they were in, save possibly for the actions of a few notable exceptions. For most the punishment of admonishment is all that is needed. Now, if they continue, then there are guilty and more stringent measures are needed.

But I could not extend the same benefit of doubt to the BSP crew, and I'm afraid that it had something to do the necessity (or the lack thereof) and a lot to do with the gratification which, to me, signaled their acknowledgment of the subject's humanity. I've heard people joking about doing such-and-such for shock value, but I've yet encountered anyone bragging about actually having gone through with it ...

I don't agree it was 6-Gina's humanity. It was 6-Gina's looks that made it possible but the real case again for me was the feeling of power, no matter how fleeting, that they got from being able to what they did.

Remember, there are many "adult magazines", XXX-rated videos, voyuer cams, phone services and the like that are done shall we say "solo" by so many males. It is not hard to see that if you have a "robot" that looks so good that for a guy to "know" "IT's" a robot but "make believe" he's having his way with a beautiful woman is easy.

Which is why the whole thing will collapse upon itself. By allowing that to happen, even if it is to give the crew a temporary feeling of power and being in control, if 6-Gina "stops functioning", aka dies, then other crew members will be given the same treatment.

I blame the command of Pegasus for the failure, not the crew. They created a monster that would have consumed them. The crew was doing what they believed to be the right thing to do because they were led astray by their superiors.

Remember, this is the "Abu Greigh(sp?)" episode. The underlings who were and are being busted are the wrong ones to stand trail. Yes, they were obeying illegal orders but what does an 18 to 21 year old E-2 or E-3 know to protect themselves from illegal orders? Especially true when an officer who may have been thinking about your interests was killed in the CIC by the CO.

... which leads me to the final point"Willful" actually covers a multitude of sins here, for I was not arguing for "ignorance" from the angle that "we think or know she is sentient." You made an excellent point up-thread about the acts being about power, and I think relishing in that power predicated upon knowing another will was bent to one's own. That there belies the "I don't know she is sentient" pretext and made their ignorance willful.

Well you've never dealt with a network before. Trust me, I've made several routers and core switches "bend to my will". No, not in that way. Sick pervert.

Now, they would have suspected 6-Gina was AI. But they may not have given "IT" true sentience. The average crew may not have known the difference and just always "knew" that Cylons, even AI Cylons are artificial in every respect. So that would mean, from an incorrect but understanable logic, that any sentience they would likewise be "artificial" and nothing more then from really advanced programming with constant feedback loops.

If Cain, Thorn or others knew the truth but continued to issue orders, or rape what they then knew to be a sentient being, yes that is a crime and it is rape on their part. Still, I do not apply that to the crew, not even on the weird "YeeHaw" guy.

Of course, a large part of my argument hinges upon the assumption that "no one in their mind would get off on such-and-such and be proud of it" ... which could very well be wrong. Oh well, it wouldn't have been the first time.

What did I say about listening to your betters on the other thread?

(Oh, I'm going to pay for that one, so I'll start now. Ouch. Owee. Yeah harder, I mean stop that hurts )

[Lightsabre]

That is why I can see things from the POV of the Pegasus crew. Now keep in mind that there's the "crew" and then there's Cain, Thorne and others who are actively persuing a rather dubious methodology.But our treatment of the crew of the Pegasus is. If we are going to climb all over the crew of the Pegasus for their actions and be unforgiving on actions that could be from not knowing, ignorance and willful ignorance comes later, what really is happening then there is no way for the crew of the Pegasus to be anything but unforgiving to the Cylons.

Not really. You've made a very clear distinction between what we know as viewers and what the crews in the show know.
So how does our attitude affect their's???

Ultimately how we respond to the crew of the Pegasus says alot abut us too.Oh, she is better than the crew of BSP. The crew made several errors in judgement in the way they went about things. Yes, one could say they were doing it for the greater good but I don't by that. They became the enemy they were so wanting to destroy.

I Agree with this. The BSP crew did become like the cylons with their 'woman farm'. In a way.
I think 'error of judgement' is a mild way to put it tho.
Basically, if someone said, "hey, there's this thing that looks like a woman. You cna all have sex with it", that doesn't mean you have to. Those crewmembers willing went and raped the enemy you claim they hate and fear so much. No one forced them. I think that says a lot about the individuals who did it, regardless of the sentient or not question. Can you really tell me they wouldn't be imagining her a woman? In the 'heat of the moment' so to speak, you really think they'd see her as just a machine?

But I say that is from their experiences and what they knew. That is all forgivable in the context they were in, save possibly for the actions of a few notable exceptions. For most the punishment of admonishment is all that is needed. Now, if they continue, then there are guilty and more stringent measures are needed.I don't agree it was 6-Gina's humanity. It was 6-Gina's looks that made it possible but the real case again for me was the feeling of power, no matter how fleeting, that they got from being able to what they did.

Here's our biggest difference. I maintain is not and never will be, forgivable.
If it was Gina's looks that made it possible, and she looks human, the it was her precieved humanity that made it possible. I"ve said it over and over, they couldn't see her as desirable, unless they saw her as human. And before you start with the 'blow up doll' argument, a blow up doll is created to mimic a human.

Remember, there are many "adult magazines", XXX-rated videos, voyuer cams, phone services and the like that are done shall we say "solo" by so many males. It is not hard to see that if you have a "robot" that looks so good that for a guy to "know" "IT's" a robot but "make believe" he's having his way with a beautiful woman is easy.

And right there, is the problem. They imagined they were raping a human woman. They raised Gina to that level in their minds. They ENJOYED it.
So, even in their imaginations, their rape fantasies, they gave her humanity.

Which is why the whole thing will collapse upon itself. By allowing that to happen, even if it is to give the crew a temporary feeling of power and being in control, if 6-Gina "stops functioning", aka dies, then other crew members will be given the same treatment.

What makes you say this? It's obvious by the time of 'Pegasus' that no one is using Gina anymore.

I blame the command of Pegasus for the failure, not the crew. They created a monster that would have consumed them. The crew was doing what they believed to be the right thing to do because they were led astray by their superiors.

I blame the command for letting it happen. The crew are still responsible for their own actions, however. You can't just blame the command and let the crew go. They are the ones who perpetrated teh crime.

Remember, this is the "Abu Greigh(sp?)" episode. The underlings who were and are being busted are the wrong ones to stand trail. Yes, they were obeying illegal orders but what does an 18 to 21 year old E-2 or E-3 know to protect themselves from illegal orders? Especially true when an officer who may have been thinking about your interests was killed in the CIC by the CO.Well you've never dealt with a network before. Trust me, I've made several routers and core switches "bend to my will". No, not in that way. Sick pervert.

Somehow, I don't think 'bend to your will' was meant in the same way you talk about routers and switches.

Now, they would have suspected 6-Gina was AI. But they may not have given "IT" true sentience. The average crew may not have known the difference and just always "knew" that Cylons, even AI Cylons are artificial in every respect. So that would mean, from an incorrect but understanable logic, that any sentience they would likewise be "artificial" and nothing more then from really advanced programming with constant feedback loops.

Possibly they believed that. It's still no excuse tho. And if all the rape did was put her in a feedback loop(and why would it do that? A spy like the human cylons must be programmed for sex because sex is a great way to get info and a great weapon to use.)The difference between rape and sex is mainly in how it occurs. by violence or by choice.
So, if Gina was programmed to know and be able to have sex, rape should not put her in feedback loop. IT wouldn't affect her at all in the scenario you describe. It's only if Gina has a humanlike mind, that she would suffer the catatonia she did.

If Cain, Thorn or others knew the truth but continued to issue orders, or rape what they then knew to be a sentient being, yes that is a crime and it is rape on their part. Still, I do not apply that to the crew, not even on the weird "YeeHaw"

The orders and the rape were wrong from the beginning. LIke I said, look at the Sharon scene.
Thorn came in, asked one question, hit her, then down come the pants.
He didn't try any other interrogation techniques, that WAS his interrogatoin technique.
And evidence from Gina is that it's useless for extracting info. Look what the threat of it did to Sharon.
All he was there to do was rape a pretty woman. End o story.

[madk99]

i dont know if this has already been mentioned but in 204- resistance tyrol says he served on pegasus maybe he still has friends there who mite bust him out

Zoiks! I didn't catch that. It deserves its own thread to discuss it! Brings on a another twist. nice catch.

[anotherquestion]

The problem here is that likening these two issues was a fallacious argument in the first place.

Contrary to what a post up-thread would suggest, those "helpless" Cylon raiders could not be considered enemy prisoners in any stretch of imagination. At best, they were enemy agents who were rendered temporarily defenseless. Whether or not it was moral to slaughter them might be debatable, but there is no denying they couldn't be taken in as prisoners.

The only other option was to leave them alone and to jump away, which IMHO is simply preposterous -- it is imperative to push one's tactical advantage in a fight for survival. I am afraid that there is no easy answer in a situation like this: what BSG crews did might not be the most moral thing, but in their circumstance it was necessary.

I think it would be easier to make a case that the two situations were not, somehow, "morally equivalent" than the stronger claims you've made here, that the comparison itself (between situation that Gina was in vs the situation of the disabled Cylon fleet) was fallacious. Nor do I agree that to consider the totally disabled Cylon fleet to be truly "helpless", in every sense of the word, would be a feat beyond any stretch of the imagination.

For one thing we can rely on memory instead of imagination. We already saw the situations reversed in the mini when the "modern" BSG Vipers were wiped out by only two Cylon Raiders equipped with the viral "broadcaster". Surely the launch of the missles upon the drifting Vipers elicted a pang of sympathy about the fate of the BSG pilots, even though, from the Cylon point of view, you might argue that they were "enemy agents who were rendered temporarily defenseless".

My point was, and still is, that some acts of war are damaging to all the participants, the victors as well as the vanquished. That is one of the reasons why they are referred to as atrocities. A massacre of the defenseless is such a situation. Rape and torture is another. If you allow widespread rape and torture, even when only directed at the enemy, sooner or later you find yourself uncomfortably surrounded by experienced rapists and torturers. What kind of company do you end of keeping with mass executioners? Is it like the old joke about being a thankless job, but thank the gods there is someone willing to do it?

Nevertheless, you've asked a very fair question about what to do as an alternative, and also raised the possibility that the Cylons could have "recovered" in a short span of time. What about the other possibility, that they would have remained infected indefinitely, and served as a possible source of contagia to the rest of the Cylons?

Actually I don't think jumping away is, necessarily, such a perposterous alternative, especially since it would give pause to a hasty pursuit. Who knows how the rest of the Cylons would have dealt with the survinging disabled vessels, they might have disposed of them themselves, rather than risk infection (much like a quarantine, or the destruction of infected birds, as suggested by an earlier poster). If not, they would have wasted time on recovering and repairing them. I'm no military expert, but I've seen them on TV, and some say that some weapons like land mines are made to cripple and not kill because more resources are taken away from the battle by tending to the wounded.

[MASON]

Zoiks! I didn't catch that. It deserves its own thread to discuss it! Brings on a another twist. nice catch.

You know, that's interesting, it means he's an old hand on both flight decks, it makes it even more likely that Tyrol will be reassigned to the Pegasus in exchange for Laird in order to keep Caprica Boomer safe from the Pegasus crew and Tyrol away from Boomer (bad things happen when they're together, Adama must realize this by now). It also gives the chance for the Galactica flight deck to get some expert maintenance/upgrades from Laird.

Considering that Tyrol commited manslaughter, and will likely do some time in the brig, I think it's most likely that Laird will become the new Deck Chief of Galactica, at least, temporarily.

[helio9]

For one thing we can rely on memory instead of imagination. We already saw the situations reversed in the mini when the "modern" BSG Vipers were wiped out by only two Cylon Raiders equipped with the viral "broadcaster". Surely the launch of the missles upon the drifting Vipers elicted a pang of sympathy about the fate of the BSG pilots, even though, from the Cylon point of view, you might argue that they were "enemy agents who were rendered temporarily defenseless".

While these situations were superficially similar, they were critically different. When the cylon raiders sent that virus over, they knew it would work. They knew what would happen, they knew they would render the enemy completely helpless indefinately. In fact, its doubtful the vipers could have been fixed at all while still in space. Yet the cylons still destroyed them. Genocide was their intention in the attack, so thats not surprising.
The BSG crew could not have known when the cylons would recover. Their virus was sent by Boomer, herself a cylon. There's no way they could have risked doing anything other than blowing them away.

But the point you made in your post is still valid.

[Liebestraume]

Now, they would have suspected 6-Gina was AI. But they may not have given "IT" true sentience.

Herein lies your answer. "Willful ignorance" has a very wide range of interpretation -- just ask Eliot Spitzer -- including, but not limited to, having the reason to suspect or in the position to find out. The BSP crew -- and by that I really mean Throne et al -- qualify on both accounts. They didn't know because they didn't want to.

So, you see, we are actually in agreement here. You jusy didn't know it, or didn't want to.

[Liebestraume]

Anotherquestion, thanks for the thought-prvoking reply. I would like to dispel a misunderstanding, ask a question, and beg to differ on at least one account. In that order.

I think it would be easier to make a case that the two situations were not, somehow, "morally equivalent" than the stronger claims you've made here, that the comparison itself (between situation that Gina was in vs the situation of the disabled Cylon fleet) was fallacious. Nor do I agree that to consider the totally disabled Cylon fleet to be truly "helpless", in every sense of the word, would be a feat beyond any stretch of the imagination.

As you can see (at least in the part of my post that you quoted), I never stated what you find so unsagreeable -- what I said was the following (please note the highlighted part) ...

Contrary to what a post up-thread would suggest, those "helpless" Cylon raiders could not be considered enemy prisoners in any stretch of imagination.

...and that was in direct response to your contention that those raiders could be considered prisoners like Gina (was).

Granted, the raiders were helpless while they remained paralyzed, but that alone did not make them prisoners of the colonials. The difference is germane to the discussion, because your original post was drawing parallel between Gina's circumstance and that of the Cylon fleet and suggesting thence the BSG crew were somewhat comparable to Thorne et al. There were in fact far too many critical distinctions to render such a comparison tenable, let alone to conclude any "moral equivalence;" therefore, likening these two situations was misleading.

For one thing we can rely on memory instead of imagination. We already saw the situations reversed in the mini when the "modern" BSG Vipers were wiped out by only two Cylon Raiders equipped with the viral "broadcaster". Surely the launch of the missles upon the drifting Vipers elicted a pang of sympathy about the fate of the BSG pilots, even though, from the Cylon point of view, you might argue that they were "enemy agents who were rendered temporarily defenseless".

I would argue that, from the Cylon point of view, those Vipers (and their pilots) were enemy agents who were rendered defenseless indefinitely; but defenselessness is hardly the issue here. Genocide could not be made any less atrocious because its victims were capable of defending themselves. I therefore fail to detect any connection between what had transpired in the mini and the foregoing discussion, unless it is the appeal to our emotions. Surely, the "pang of sympathy" would not make the viewers lose all ability to think critically and unsentimentally?

My point was, and still is, that some acts of war are damaging to all the participants, the victors as well as the vanquished. That is one of the reasons why they are referred to as atrocities. A massacre of the defenseless is such a situation. Rape and torture is another. If you allow widespread rape and torture, even when only directed at the enemy, sooner or later you find yourself uncomfortably surrounded by experienced rapists and torturers. What kind of company do you end of keeping with mass executioners? Is it like the old joke about being a thankless job, but thank the gods there is someone willing to do it?

That's a charming sentiment, an absolutist stance which -- I must confess -- is so much more conducive to retaining one's ability to function than holding two opposed ideas in mind at the same time. To make it relevant, however, a little more context and a little less generalization seem to be in order.

You opinion seems to hold the BSG crew in moral contempt because of their killing of the "helpless" raiders; I can respect that. However, your post also went on to appeal to the reader's sensibility, suggesting not doing so would be akin to embracing some very unsavory element. Such inference presumes a general agreement to your assessment of the said characters. This I cannot agree.

Needless to say -- but I'm saying it anyway -- no one is condoning torture, rape, or killing. Our views differ only in if, how, or why we found the characters behind these acts objectionable. As such, why they do what they do matters. "The context matters." Did the BSG crew have any viable alternative? If not, the killing was not indiscriminate. Were the raiders still enemy agents? If so, the manner to dispose them was not unusual.

Not to argue semantics, but I find the wording of "massacre" a bit imprecise and misleading. "Mass executioner" is yet another example. Their usage ascribed certain motive(s), such as cruelty or callousness, to an act when such motives had not been satisfactorily established in context. In fact, the nature of the said motives remains very much a point of contention. To assume it into evidence -- as the premises of the debate -- is therefore, perhaps, presumptuous at best.

As for the old adage "it's a thankless job but someone has to do it," I find it at times to be more than just a joke. There is courage and nobility in the willingness to carry the burden of conscience for others -- for this, we can also rely on memory instead of imagination. No one would ever know for sure whether or not the Olympic Carrier had been sent to the fleet as a Trojan horse, and I think Adama will always wonder if he was responsible for the lost of over 1,000 innocent souls. Yet he made the hard call for the good of the fleet. I think that moment was one of the most poignant of Season 1. (Similar examples abound, but I shall refrain. When it boils down to personal philosophy, I do not expect many people to agree.)

Nevertheless, you've asked a very fair question about what to do as an alternative, and also raised the possibility that the Cylons could have "recovered" in a short span of time. What about the other possibility, that they would have remained infected indefinitely, and served as a possible source of contagia to the rest of the Cylons?

Actually I don't think jumping away is, necessarily, such a perposterous alternative, especially since it would give pause to a hasty pursuit. Who knows how the rest of the Cylons would have dealt with the survinging disabled vessels, they might have disposed of them themselves, rather than risk infection (much like a quarantine, or the destruction of infected birds, as suggested by an earlier poster). If not, they would have wasted time on recovering and repairing them. I'm no military expert, but I've seen them on TV, and some say that some weapons like land mines are made to cripple and not kill because more resources are taken away from the battle by tending to the wounded.

I fail to see how viable it is, as a practical matter, to leave the raiders intact. Do the BSG crew even understand how Cylon network functions? If not, how could they seriously opine on the possibility of contagion? They didn't even have a way of knowing how long the raiders would remain paralyzed. Those are just conjecture (and, by the viewers, no less) -- if neither panned out, the colonials would once again face an overwhelming enemy force. With their survival at the stake, and when a "safe bet" was available, how sensible would it have been to opt for some unfounded speculations?

And all for what? So they could claim the moral high-ground of "we don't kill helpless enemies"? Let us consider for a minute the possibility of the infected raiders being destroyed by their own kind. If I were a moral absolutist, I'd argue that leaving the raiders to die thusly would be no different from killing them. That would make the BSG crew killers as well as hypocrites. Worse yet, they would also be cowards, and selfish to boot, because they would rather risk the lives of the entire fleet than to carry the burden of their command. A moral absolutist would argue for all those things, so that quest for moral high-ground -- in this context -- would have been an exercise in futility.

[LCD2YOU]

Herein lies your answer. "Willful ignorance" has a very wide range of interpretation -- just ask Eliot Spitzer -- including, but not limited to, having the reason to suspect or in the position to find out. The BSP crew -- and by that I really mean Throne et al -- qualify on both accounts. They didn't know because they didn't want to.

Well, we still may be a speaking in different terms here. I don't hold all AI systems to be sentient. An AI system, to me may have the ability to learn, change some programming but in the end, they are only as good as the basic programming. So as much as I despise Cain and what's his name Thorn, they may have come to a quick and convenient conclusion that AI doesn't mean sentience.

If that was the case, and they meant it with no more malice than their basic intention to gain intel from a "Cylon Robot", that may be the case. If the crew of BSP who followed orders from their superiors on this were in the dark because their superiors said so. Military training runs deep.

So, you see, we are actually in agreement here. You jusy didn't know it, or didn't want to.

So I'm willfully ignorant? Well I, um.....

Well, I am happy and ignorance is bliss.....

But getting back to BSP and the whole thing of "Not Knowing" vs "May not know there is a difference nor understand it anyway" vs "Ignorance" vs "Willful Ignorance" vs "Not aware there was anything deeper" vs "Believing or thinking there is not a need for you to know" vs "Don't give a rat's behind", are all fine lines.

That I don't know if you're married or not is "Ignorance" on my part. I will then state that it is that I'm in the catagory of "Not Knowing" because it's a case of "Believing or thinking there is not a need for me to know".

Now I can get down into the case of cupability here and go through the list but this is how I see the BSP crew and the other's "ignorance" of 6-Gina's sentience:

For purposes of this debate, I am ASSUMING that all are at least ignorant:

Cain: Willful ignorant because she "Believes or thinks there is not a need for her to know"

Thorn: As Cain. As such, he is the weakest to defend here (I'm only doing this as a what if) and he probably is at least in the "Don't give a rat's behind"

Other officers involved: "Believing or thinking there is not a need for them to know"

The rest of the crew: "May not know there is a difference nor understand it anyway" at best or simply just were "Not aware there was anything deeper"

That is why I can say honestly that the crew of BSP are innocent of rape if that is the way they thought of things that were going on.

[AzMcNeil]

That is why I can say honestly that the crew of BSP are innocent of rape if that is the way they thought of things that were going on.

LCD I respect you as a forum meber and most of your posts are excellent to read, but after this remark I must confess, if this is your honest view on the situation, you are retarded and should be locked away in dark cell and the key should be melted down. You might as well be a BSP crew member. Now quickly breathe out and jump out the airlock!

[ronsmytheiii]

If you want to see the final two minutes of Pegasus, they are up on Bear McCreary's site:

http://www.bearmccreary.com/html/bgframe.htm

click on prelude to war

[anotherquestion]

Anotherquestion, thanks for the thought-prvoking reply. I would like to dispel a misunderstanding, ask a question, and beg to differ on at least one account. In that order.

Liebestraume, thank you for you're well crafted response. I think I'm better understanding your precise difference of opinion (but I've been mistaken before), but I'm not sure which is the question you're referring to (there seem to be several, and some of them appear to be rhetorical).

At any rate, I'm enjoying the discussion.

Granted, the raiders were helpless while they remained paralyzed, but that alone did not make them prisoners of the colonials. ...
I would argue that, from the Cylon point of view, those Vipers (and their pilots) were enemy agents who were rendered defenseless indefinitely; but defenselessness is hardly the issue here...

Before you go on to explain what "is" the real issue here, let me voice my objection. I would like to make "defenselessness" the issue. That is at least one characteristic that is similar in both situations. And it alone is the basis for my comparison (from my perspective at least). Once the Cylons were rendered defenseless, the threat to the fleet was dissipated, and the moral responsibility of those still able to deal out death and destruction had shifted. This is true regardless of how you label the Cylons (prisoners, combatants, enemy agents). Their "formal" status doesn't outweigh their "actual" helplessness. Once the virus took hold, the threat was effectively over, so was the potential for actual combat. Colonel Tigh didn't order that prisoners be taken, he didn't order the fleet to "stand down", he didn't order the fleet to "jump away" while the BSG mainframes were re-initializing, he just said to "Murder the *******s". You may possibly take umbrage with his semantics, too.

Genocide could not be made any less atrocious because its victims were capable of defending themselves. I therefore fail to detect any connection between what had transpired in the mini and the foregoing discussion, unless it is the appeal to our emotions. Surely, the "pang of sympathy" would not make the viewers lose all ability to think critically and unsentimentally?

Nope, the "pang of sympathy" doesn't necessarily negate the ability to think critically and unsentimentally, it simply illuminates from a different perspective what is basically the same act, the wholesale destruction of "would be" combatants that have been rendered defenseless. The case in the mini is one that the viewers inherently find less sympathetic for the killers (assuming they identify with the men and women more than the machines). It ought to illuminate the morality (or, im my opinion, immorality) of the act of killing in both circumstances. I don't see why this makes me an absolutist. I like the relative comparisons.

I tried my best to offer an example that was entirely "apples to apples". Both actions were between armed combatants (i.e. no civilians or "innocent bystanders" were involved). That's one reason why I find your introduction of the word "genocide" in this situation to be as "semantically charged" as you think of my use of the word "massacre" (later on). These were both "straight up" military confrontations. Enfolding the confrontation in the mini into the larger Cylon plan of genocide and planet cleansing distorts rather than clarifies the comparison.

I agree entirely that genocide is atrocious regardless of the "targets" ability to defend themselves. As a practical matter, of course, the ability to defend oneself often proves the difference between genocide and attempted genocide .

That's a charming sentiment, an absolutist stance ...

Ouch! I don't want to prevail in an a reasoned discussion because of charm and sentiment. I would like to persuasivly make my case because I'm supported by reason, evidence and consistency (in a charming and possibly sentimental way, perhaps). I hope absolutely that I'm not an absolutist. I agree that context does matter.

You opinion seems to hold the BSG crew in moral contempt because of their killing of the "helpless" raiders; I can respect that. However, your post also went on to appeal to the reader's sensibility, suggesting not doing so would be akin to embracing some very unsavory element. Such inference presumes a general agreement to your assessment of the said characters...

I am saying the the act itself was contemptible and that the BSG pilots are not exempt from contamination by committing it. This doesn't mean that Gallactica or its crew are beyond sympathy or are totally unsavory. Their own larger situation is dire and they've suffered greatly, as is the lot of the Pegasus crew. This is not all "black and white", there's a lot of gray to go around. Whatever other inference you're picking up I'm not intending to be putting out.

Needless to say -- but I'm saying it anyway -- no one is condoning torture, rape, or killing... "The context matters." Did the BSG crew have any viable alternative? If not, the killing was not indiscriminate. Were the raiders still enemy agents? If so, the manner to dispose them was not unusual.

Here, I think, we reach the crux of our disagreement. I think that jumping away was a viable alternative. I think the killing was discriminating in the sense that they targeted only Raiders, not other Vipers . I think the enemy agent status doesn't trump the helpless status. I think what happened mattered.

Not to argue semantics, but I find the wording of "massacre" a bit imprecise and misleading... Their usage ascribed certain motive(s), such as cruelty or callousness, to an act when such motives had not been satisfactorily established in context...

I actually like to argue semantics. I've always liked to study words and I try to chose them carefully, for their precision and nuance. Words like "absquatulate" and "contagia" that I've used in earlier posts were chosen with a genuine sense of joy at the variety of the English language. I even enjoy saying them out loud.

"Massacre" seems apt in that it describes a one-sided killing of a large group in a wanton manner. It has a nice (in the old fashioned sense of precise) sense of gravitas commensurate with the situation at hand. One alternative which I did consider, "decimation" would not do (for one thing, it's meaning has "reversed" itself over time. Historically it meant to kill one in ten, now it's current usage is usually in the context of killing at least nine out of ten).

I don't think it would be entirely inappropriate to call many of the battles in the first Gulf War, for example, as massacres (although I'm sure this may be seen as "provocative", too, and I don't expect many to agree with me). Many Iraqi lives were lost to air attacks with no coalition casualities. The total balance sheet was widely skewed, to the point where a non-trivial proportion of coalition deaths could be attributed to non-combat related accidents, "friendly fire", and the one Scud attack on a barracks. This does not undermine, in itself, the legitimacy of the conflict, nor the nobility or sacrifice of those on the winning side.

Perhaps you could suggest a more appropriate word for a casualty ratio that exceeds forty or fifty or more to one? When does a "rout" become a "massacre"? Is it not simply a matter of numbers or ratios? Would the word "massacre" be appropriately applied to events that are normally considered to be quitessentially "heroic", like the Greek stand at Thermopalye, or when "remembering" the Alamo?

As for the old adage "it's a thankless job but someone has to do it," I find it at times to be more than just a joke. There is courage and nobility in the willingness to carry the burden of conscience for others -- for this, we can also rely on memory instead of imagination. No one would ever know for sure whether or not the Olympic Carrier had been sent to the fleet as a Trojan horse, and I think Adama will always wonder if he was responsible for the lost of over 1,000 innocent souls...

Here, again, we may differ significantly depending on context and circumstances. There may be courage and nobility in the willingness to carry the burden of conscience for others, but there may be elements of hypocrisy and ignobility too, when we sluff off "dirty work" to others to "keep our hands clean". Another (again controversial) contempory example is the government/military practice of "rendition", which means, in this context, turning over captured enemy combatants to other agencies and governments who do not have qualms or restrictions against torture as "more civilized" governments do, for the purpose of extracting information. (As a completely irrelevant aside "render" is a great word, full of many unusally divergent meanings. Rendering a person has many unpleasant alternative interpretations than many would initially suspect.)

Perhaps on a more pertinent note is the situation you posit for the Olympic Carrier. It's destruction was, I agree, a poignant moment in the mini. The threat to the fleet was real, however, since there was no legitimate reason for it to be carrying a nuclear threat (as was detected by BSG), and, I think, "due dilligence" was exercised by making a pass looking for, but not seeing, any "innocent" passengers.

What I would find "immoral" would be if, somehow, they were able to disable the engines of the Olympic Carrier, as they did the Cylon fleet, and then, nevertheless, to destroy it.

[anotherquestion]

I fail to see how viable it is, as a practical matter, to leave the raiders intact. Do the BSG crew even understand how Cylon network functions? If not, how could they seriously opine on the possibility of contagion? They didn't even have a way of knowing how long the raiders would remain paralyzed. Those are just conjecture (and, by the viewers, no less) -- if neither panned out, the colonials would once again face an overwhelming enemy force. With their survival at the stake, and when a "safe bet" was available, how sensible would it have been to opt for some unfounded speculations?

Your points are valid here. I'm not saying its probable, just that it is possible, and, perhaps, not as "perposterous" as you suggested earlier. The Colonials don't know how Cylon's networks function. Sharon, on the other hand, is a Cylon and she clearly does know enough to counter them effectively. One need only ask her how long her counterpunch would remain in effect. No one did, however. You could claim, as others have in this thread, that this is yet another ruse in the limitlessly devious Cylon plan to ingratiate Sharon in to the bosom of trust of the Colonials. This, to me, seems perposterous.

And all for what? So they could claim the moral high-ground of "we don't kill helpless enemies"? Let us consider for a minute the possibility of the infected raiders being destroyed by their own kind. If I were a moral absolutist, I'd argue that leaving the raiders to die thusly would be no different from killing them. That would make the BSG crew killers as well as hypocrites. Worse yet, they would also be cowards, and selfish to boot, because they would rather risk the lives of the entire fleet than to carry the burden of their command. A moral absolutist would argue for all those things, so that quest for moral high-ground -- in this context -- would have been an exercise in futility.

Once again, I resist taking on the label of "absolutist". What would make a difference is "actually" not to destroy the disabled Raiders, not to "virtually" destroy them by leaving them to the tender mercies of the Cylons. Leaving them to a guaranteed destruction at the hands of the Cylons does not make them participants in that destruction, any more than jumping away from the non-FTL ships made BSG and the surviving fleet "killers as well as hypocrites". Giving up one's life in a futilie effort to save another's is not equivalent to destroying the other's life (absolutely or relatively).

[Lightsabre]

[COLOR="Blue"]

Before you go on to explain what "is" the real issue here, let me voice my objection. I would like to make "defenselessness" the issue. That is at least one characteristic that is similar in both situations. And it alone is the basis for my comparison (from my perspective at least). Once the Cylons were rendered defenseless, the threat to the fleet was dissipated, and the moral responsibility of those still able to deal out death and destruction had shifted. This is true regardless of how you label the Cylons (prisoners, combatants, enemy agents). Their "formal" status doesn't outweigh their "actual" helplessness. Once the virus took hold, the threat was effectively over, so was the potential for actual combat. Colonel Tigh didn't order that prisoners be taken, he didn't order the fleet to "stand down", he didn't order the fleet to "jump away" while the BSG mainframes were re-initializing, he just said to "Murder the *******s". You may possibly take umbrage with his semantics, too.

I'd like to jump in here with the analogy I made earlier. On the battlefield, hte guy I'm fighting trip and bayonet or shoot him. THat's not murder.
I see it as the same with the raiders. The virus 'tripped' them, but we have no way of knowing how long for.
They were still armed and, quite possibly, dangerous.
while the fleet COULD have jumped away, there is no saying that some of them couldn't have followed or tracked them.
Also, remember that the Raiders were attacking a helpless BSG, all the virus did was turn the tables. For that matter, they did the same thing in the mini. The difference is the cylons are the aggressors. They wouldn't have been killed if they weren't attacking the BSG.
[

[LoneStar1836]

Colonel Tigh didn't order that prisoners be taken, he didn't order the fleet to "stand down", he didn't order the fleet to "jump away" while the BSG mainframes were re-initializing, he just said to "Murder the *******s".

Actually he said “Kill the *******s.” Those two words are not always interchangeable.

My point was, and still is, that some acts of war are damaging to all the participants, the victors as well as the vanquished. That is one of the reasons why they are referred to as atrocities. A massacre of the defenseless is such a situation. Rape and torture is another. If you allow widespread rape and torture, even when only directed at the enemy, sooner or later you find yourself uncomfortably surrounded by experienced rapists and torturers. What kind of company do you end of keeping with mass executioners? Is it like the old joke about being a thankless job, but thank the gods there is someone willing to do it?

This came from post #499 so I’m quoting the whole paragraph just for context, but I’m focusing specifically on the sentence in bold. Though I will say that I get what you are saying in that paragraph. All war is hell and leaves lasting effects on a person, but destroying machines that you are fairly certain do not contain humans and killing humans are two different things so I wouldn’t think they would have the exact same psychological effects on a person. Anyway back to my point...

What exactly were they executing? Specifically. For me, that is the whole crux of the discussion. I’m not talking about whether they were prisoners or combatants or enemy agents.

What are Raiders? What are Centurions? Are they living, breathing organisms that should be granted the same considerations and rights as humans? I’m not including human model Cylons because that’s pure speculation whether or not there were any present in the attack fleet, and I find them much harder to define. Plus we had that debate in another thread already.

For me, defining or at least trying to generally establish what those two things are (based on information gleaned from the show) helps to determine how I view the action taken by the BSG crew.

To me, Centurions are nothing more than machines with highly developed AI. Do I think killing a Centurion is on par with killing a human? No.

To me, Raiders are nothing more than machines controlled by animals bred to perform a task. Do I think killing a Raider is on par with killing a human? No.

So no, I find nothing wrong with what the pilots did nor do I think the action that they took should somehow taint the way they should be viewed. They were not slaughtering helpless human enemy combatants. That is why I mentioned the destruction of fowl earlier. People generally don’t classify the people tasked with killing all those birds as mass murderers. Maybe some on the lunatic fringe do, but rational people see it as a safety measure to protect the human population as well as the bird population. Now I’m not for the random killing of innocent animals. I don’t condone gassing a room full of fluffy kittens just for the heck of it, but if those Cylon Raiders had been piloted by the same fluffy kittens, I would still have no problem with what Lee and the others did. And I certainly have no problem with destroying a bunch of highly advanced computers with legs whose hands turn into machine guns.

Now maybe I have oversimplified what Raiders and Centurions are. Maybe they are a little more complex than that, but to me, I find it a far stretch to equate them with humans.

So can I ask you, anotherquestion, what is your view of Raiders and Centurions? To me, based on my interpretation of your posts, you seem to have a different view of what they are, as if somehow they are equivalent to humans and should be treated as such. Now maybe I'm wrong. That's why I'm asking.

You could claim, as others have in this thread, that this is yet another ruse in the limitlessly devious Cylon plan to ingratiate Sharon in to the bosom of trust of the Colonials. This, to me, seems perposterous.

Can I ask why you find it preposterous? If you care to answer, you can respond over in the “Flight of the Phoenix” episode thread if you want since it would be more on topic over there.