Pegasus (210)

[Lightsabre]

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.

I guess this is the core issue.
You aren't innocent of rape if you rape someone. That sounds simplisitic, but it's not.
Men are convicted all the time of rape and they maintain, 'I didn't know she didn't want it' or "I thought she wanted it". Ignorance is NO excuse.
Whether they knew Gina was sentient or not, AI or not, They.Raped.Her.
Now, if tehre was a trial, your argument could be used for mitigation, but it doesn't excuse what they did.
And willful ignorance, the 'I didn't know' or 'I didn't want to know' is the same as the excuse I put in above.
"I thought she wanted it". Had the person stopped and asked, they may have found out she didn't. So they didn't ask. It's still rape.
The crew didn't know and didn't CARE, in your scenario, when they raped her. It's no excuse.
And finally, someone who 'doesn't give a rat's behind' whether she is sentient or not is a rapist for damn sure

[LCD2YOU]

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!

Jump.

But as with the Abu Greihb fiasco, the problem is with the officers, not enlisted. As I pointed out before I feel that the "regular crew" of the BSP should be given a pass on this one, this time. Now that they know what is really going on, the will not get to try it a second time.

As I was saying to Liebestraume, the BSP's crew are at best

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"

Because of this they wouldn't know it to be rape.

Do I agree that from what I know it is rape? Yes.

But as I said time and time again the crew of the BSP didn't have the luxury of looking in on the scenes as we do.

Hope that means I don't have to jump out of an air lock now.

One question though, as this is the episode that relates to the Abu Greihb fiasco in Iraq, do you think that people like Prc. England are at fault and should be punished or is the fault much higher up? See, I know what they did was wrong and the excude of "just following orders" has been shown not to be viable, but the Iraqi prisoners are human. The problem for 6-Gina is they could point out that she was a Cylon and despite the exterior was a machine.

I am trying to be as forgiving to those who didn't know any better the benfit of the doubt here. With so many wanting to punishe the crew of BSP so badly, does that mean we all need a scapegoat to feel better? Only two of note that I saw who were wrong are Cain and Thorn. Even they may have had a case, but they did amd allowed other things to occur that they can be punished for and punished severly.

[Lightsabre]

Jump.

But as with the Abu Greihb fiasco, the problem is with the officers, not enlisted. As I pointed out before I feel that the "regular crew" of the BSP should be given a pass on this one, this time. Now that they know what is really going on, the will not get to try it a second time.

No, the problem is the lot of them. The officers gave the order, but the grunts still carried it out.
They could have refused. Now, for the Abu Gahrib guys, it might have meant charges, court martial and like.
For BSP, it might have meant death. That still doesn't let them off the hook for rape.

As I was saying to Liebestraume, the BSP's crew are at bestBecause of this they wouldn't know it to be rape.

Do I agree that from what I know it is rape? Yes.

But as I said time and time again the crew of the BSP didn't have the luxury of looking in on the scenes as we do.

Their perception of it doesn't matter. As I said above, there are many rapists in jail right now who will maintain that they didn't rape anyone. In their minds they didn't. This logic chain means we should release them, since they didn't KNWO it was rape.
Doesn't track for me.(And before you get angry, I"m NOT saying you are advocating rape, I'm just saying that is where this logic chain leads).

Hope that means I don't have to jump out of an air lock now.

One question though, as this is the episode that relates to the Abu Greihb fiasco in Iraq, do you think that people like Prc. England are at fault and should be punished or is the fault much higher up? See, I know what they did was wrong and the excude of "just following orders" has been shown not to be viable, but the Iraqi prisoners are human. The problem for 6-Gina is they could point out that she was a Cylon and despite the exterior was a machine.

England was at fault. She did the wrong thing. She deserves to be punished.
And so do the people that ordered it.
Gina's humanity doesn't come into it.

I am trying to be as forgiving to those who didn't know any better the benfit of the doubt here. With so many wanting to punishe the crew of BSP so badly, does that mean we all need a scapegoat to feel better? Only two of note that I saw who were wrong are Cain and Thorn. Even they may have had a case, but they did amd allowed other things to occur that they can be punished for and punished severly.

But they did know better, they just didn't care.

[LCD2YOU]

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!

One thing that I can see to be an issue, one that makes it difficult for some to see that what the crew of the BSP did was not rape is following:

Again, from the POV of the crew of BSP who were "ignorant" based on "Not knowing" and "Not aware there was more toher as they had no reason to suspect"

1: Is 6-Gina human? Nope

2: Is 6-Gina an animal? Nope

3: Is 6-Gina even "alive"? Not really. Yeah there's living tissue but for all of that, it is a big pool of protoplasm.

According to Colonial Law would it be rape? No and 6-Gina is a Cylon and Cylons as far as the Colonies are concerned are just AI robots.

So the "abuse" inflicted upon the Cylon that calls itself Gina was not rape at all from most likely their POV and the law. We know it isn't right, but that it. If you have some somethign to show different, please show it as 'd like to see it.

So any attempts to equate the rape of a living human with what happened to 6-Gina are not going to work as 6-Gina is not human.

[madk99]

"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?

Although, I, too, am just a "semantic" at heart, I disagree with your use of "massacre" and support Leib on this one. I would propose that a massacre implies more on a needless killing of a group wantonly. While I agree that they could have asked Sharon how long they will be down -- and then didn't, that doesn't change the fact that they are still hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned in the war at large. The fact that this individual battle turned in their favor so drastically does not mean destroying the raiders wasn't a necessity. It merely changed from a tactical to a strategic imperative.
No, simply jumping way was not an option by any stretch.

And now... although I'm quite certain that I will be bombarded with criticism. And be it known that I DO NOT want to turn this into a political discussion...
However, as the analogy was brought up ... the prisoner "abuse" at the Abu Graib facility cannot even begin to compare to Gina on the Peg. Granted we have all seen SOME of the reports and pictures from "Grab-an-Arab". But from what I have seen, this was merely humiliation and embarrassment. I would contend that these are techniques not tortures. Psychological tools and mild physical discomfort short of pain and injury are valid methods for interrogation Sleep deprivation, temperature fluctuations, inducing fear -- even terror, could all fit into this category, as could many other things. Few here have take the position that what was done to Gina was justified -- and I am NOT saying that it was. I'm simply saying that the levels of what some are calling "torture" are vastly, vastly different.
And before any of you go there, please don't make the argument that it is, indeed, just a matter of degrees - that torture is torture. Done deal. Those taking that position could be labeled as a "moral absolutist" -- and certainly none of us want to be tagged with that moniker!

[Lightsabre]

One thing that I can see to be an issue, one that makes it difficult for some to see that what the crew of the BSP did was not rape is following:

Again, from the POV of the crew of BSP who were "ignorant" based on "Not knowing" and "Not aware there was more toher as they had no reason to suspect"

1: Is 6-Gina human? Nope

2: Is 6-Gina an animal? Nope

3: Is 6-Gina even "alive"? Not really. Yeah there's living tissue but for all of that, it is a big pool of protoplasm.

According to Colonial Law would it be rape? No and 6-Gina is a Cylon and Cylons as far as the Colonies are concerned are just AI robots.

So the "abuse" inflicted upon the Cylon that calls itself Gina was not rape at all from most likely their POV and the law. We know it isn't right, but that it. If you have some somethign to show different, please show it as 'd like to see it.

So any attempts to equate the rape of a living human with what happened to 6-Gina are not going to work as 6-Gina is not human.

Rape does not exclusively happen to humans by humans.

[Liebestraume]

Anotherquestion, I shall dispense with our usual pleasantries for the sake of brevity (yeah, like that has ever worked for me ). Sufffices it to say I wouldn't have been here if I weren't enjoying the discussion. The ensuing is a partial response to your post, as a lot of ground has already been covered by other posters whose viewpoints I generally agree.

... 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).

Some were indeed meant as rhetorical, but I did wonder the relevance of the mini. While both situations bore superficial resemblance, "defenselessness" had not been the central issue of the foregoing discussion. The discussion originally had derived from the debate over BSP crew's treatment of Gina, and IMHO captivity, or being kept under involuntary custody, is the apt characterization of her circumstance.

Of course now I see that was your effort of making "defenselessness" the issue. So you did answer my question after all.

... I like the relative comparisons.

As I said, the similarities are only superficial while the differences are critical. I believe several posters have made an excellent case to this end.

... 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.

If placing these incidents in their original context -- examining "why they do what they do" -- could not clarify, then perhaps it's a sign that the comparison lacked ground in the first place. The content of this show is far too complex for "defenselessness" to become the be-all end-all issue.

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.

Do I detect the "it's all in your head" tactics rearing its head? If so, then what happened to the "supported by reason, evidence, and consistency" and all that good stuff? In any case, I'll explain just for the sake of clarity.

Amidst the discussion of Gina's rape, you brought up BSG's kill of infected Cylons and claimed "it was more like a mass execution of helpless prisoners" (in post #470). You then go on to state:

I'm not defending the repeated rape or torture of Gina by the Pegasus crew. I'm just not holding the Gallactica crew in much higher esteem. Both acts were atrocities and to say otherwise seems hypocritical. What happened to the Cylons could be called a massacre without ambiguity.

Upon being challenged on the "prisoner" characterization and the ground for comparison, you then replied (in post #499):

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?

To ask that last question, the presumption would have to be that the reader -- or whom your question was directed at -- were in agreement with your characterization of BSG crew as the "mass executioners;" otherwise, the question wouldn't make any sense in its context. That was the inference I was speaking of and objecting to.

...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).
......
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.
......
"Massacre" seems apt in that it describes a one-sided killing of a large group in a wanton manner.
......
Perhaps you could suggest a more appropriate word for a casualty ratio that exceeds forty or fifty or more to one?

Sorry, but no can do . Arguing semantics is not particularly enjoyable for its own sake, and I would do so only when necessary. To this end, I feel compelled to point out that I didn't say your use of "massacre" was "semantically charged" -- I explained why I found it misleading. "Genocide," on the other hand, means the deliberate and systematic elimination of a racial, political, or cultural group; as it was established by the show, this was exactly what Cylons were doing to the colonies, of which the colonial fleet was only a small part. You may think it's "semantically charged" but is it not accurate?

...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.

Perhaps it's plausible, or even possible, for an omniscient viewer, but for the BSG crew -- who have a lot less knowledge about the Cylons -- it's downright fanciful. I was going for diplomatic there towards the end; given the preceding argument, which antonym of "sensible" do you suppose is the most apropos?

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).

But who is saying they are? Perhaps I didn't make it clear the first time, so I'll re-iterate. I was speaking solely of a (hypothetical) situation in FotP -- in that context, I was saying that BSG crew would have been participants in those raiders' destruction by virtue of infecting them with the virus in the first place. This is completely different from passively leaving them to their fate. As such, the "relative comparison" to the situation in mini, when the fleet had to jump away from the non-FTL ships, lacks ground and is therefore entirely unwarranted. So is the leap of logic in your last sentence.

And, last but not least, ...

... Once again, I resist taking on the label of "absolutist". ...

... since this seems to matter quite a great deal to you, I'd like to state for the record that I did not give you such label. What I said was the viewpoint you had presented was the stance of an moral absolutist. There is a difference between opinions and the person advocating them. Or so I believe.

[Futura]

I cant wait for the second part of this episode, I liked this episode very much! Adama launching his Vipers at the Pegaus, wow!

[Lord §okar]

Heh, it seems that nine tenths of the worthwhile discussion on this board happens in the BSG section.

Rape does not exclusively happen to humans by humans.

True, indeed. There is no provision in the definition of rape that it can occurr solely between creatures deemed to be sentient.

1: Is 6-Gina human? Nope

2: Is 6-Gina an animal? Nope

3: Is 6-Gina even "alive"? Not really. Yeah there's living tissue but for all of that, it is a big pool of protoplasm.
She is not a human but that doesn't preclude her being an animal, nor from being alive.

1. No arguments.

2. This is open to some contention. I'll be working from the Wiki definition of Kingdom Animalia. Physically Humano-Cylons are indistinguisable from humans without rigorous and protracted micro-examination so we can assume all physical traits that would denote membership in the animal kingdom are present. Taxonomically they are animals, it doesn't matter that they possess some inorganic compounds (we do, too).

3. Again, that's a fairly contentious position to adopt. Biologically something can be considered "alive" if it:

• Grows (tick) A damaged Cylon can heal itself necessating the ability to grow new cells. It's unlikely that they have developmental periods, though. From what's been said they emerge
  Spoiler:

  from the resurrection ship
  fully formed.
• Metabolises (tick) Cylons must take in energy from some source and we know that they can operate away from Cylon supply ships for prolonged periods meaning they must be able to eat human food (they also have a functioning digestive system being physically human).
• Moves (tick)
• Reproduces (tick)
• Responds to external stimuli (tick)

Rape of a Humano-Cylon, arguable sentience or not, is sexual assault of a living creature, or even of an animal, both offenses punishable under law. Thorne et al might not have seen Gina as human, they mightn't even considered her alive, but she was and they are, therefore, guity of that offense.

[MASON]

Heh, it seems that nine tenths of the worthwhile discussion on this board happens in the BSG section.

No argument here.

Biologically something can be considered "alive" if it:

• Grows (tick) A damaged Cylon can heal itself necessating the ability to grow new cells. It's unlikely that they have developmental periods, though. From what's been said they emerge
  Spoiler:

  from the resurrection ship
  fully formed.
• Metabolises (tick) Cylons must take in energy from some source and we know that they can operate away from Cylon supply ships for prolonged periods meaning they must be able to eat human food (they also have a functioning digestive system being physically human).
• Moves (tick)
• Reproduces (tick)
• Responds to external stimuli (tick)

Now I'm not arguing that what the Pegasus crew did was morally justified, it's not, but I think that the definition of a living organism you describe, requires that reproduction is intra-species, and this, the Cylons are incapable of.

Essentially, the humano-cylons will die out if they cannot find a way to reproduce organically. Although Boomer has conceived a child, it is of another species altogether. So, however many functions of a living organism Gina possesses, she's still one short. Which, IMHO, is what the Cylons are seeking to remedy with Boomer's child and their experiments on the Caprican survivors (

Spoiler:

and Starbuck's ovaries?

).

If, "Reproduction is one of God's commandments," then the cylons will not be spiritually fulfilled until they achieve it. Thus necessitating their hybridization with the Colonial humans.

So I think I'll stick with the idea that Gina's rape is an atrocity, that it demeans the perpetrator and the victim, and leave it at that.

[madk99]

Essentially, the humano-cylons will die out if they cannot find a way to reproduce organically. Although Boomer has conceived a child, it is of another species altogether. So, however many functions of a living organism Gina possesses, she's still one short. Which, IMHO, is what the Cylons are seeking to remedy with Boomer's child and their experiments on the Caprican survivors (

Spoiler:

and Starbuck's ovaries?

).

If, "Reproduction is one of God's commandments," then the cylons will not be spiritually fulfilled until they achieve it. Thus necessitating their hybridization with the Colonial humans.

I think a couple of definitions are in order.
First.
Life --
1) it must take in, metabolize and excrete. i.e. grow (Even the captured Raider took a dump in a deleted scene)
2) It must have the capacity to reproduce and expand the population. i.e. a rock crystal can reproduce itself, a crystal will grow. But it cannot be considered alive because one crystal can only beget one crystal. Reproductive fitness does not even enter into the equation.
second --
Species. Two organisms are considered to be the same species if they have the capacity to genetically mix gametes (read: Boink ) and produce a fertile offspring genetically equivalent to both parents. e.g. A donky and a horse can mate to produce a mule (which is sterile) and are therefore not the same species. it should be noted that this definition only applies to sexually reproducing species. Asexual organisms, like bacteria, that reproduce by fission or budding are not usually defined as "species" as this level but usually as "strains".

So basically, to be alive, an organism must able to grow and the population must be able to grow. Using these definitions I tend to think of the Hu-lons not as alive but as biologically encompassed A.I. However, that now begs the question that if humans and cylons can interbreed, How can they be different species? If then they are the same species, how can one be alive and one not? Therefore, if the Cylons are alive why can they not breed themselves?
But as we have seen in our real world just as clearly as the one RDM&Co has created for us -- Technology blurs lines originally defined by nature.

[MASON]

I think a couple of definitions are in order.
First.
Life --
1) it must take in, metabolize and excrete. i.e. grow (Even the captured Raider took a dump in a deleted scene)
2) It must have the capacity to reproduce and expand the population. i.e. a rock crystal can reproduce itself, a crystal will grow. But it cannot be considered alive because one crystal can only beget one crystal. Reproductive fitness does not even enter into the equation.
second --
Species. Two organisms are considered to be the same species if they have the capacity to genetically mix gametes (read: Boink ) and produce a fertile offspring genetically equivalent to both parents. e.g. A donky and a horse can mate to produce a mule (which is sterile) and are therefore not the same species. it should be noted that this definition only applies to sexually reproducing species. Asexual organisms, like bacteria, that reproduce by fission or budding are not usually defined as "species" as this level but usually as "strains".

So basically, to be alive, an organism must able to grow and the population must be able to grow. Using these definitions I tend to think of the Hu-lons not as alive but as biologically encompassed A.I. However, that now begs the question that if humans and cylons can interbreed, How can they be different species? If then they are the same species, how can one be alive and one not? Therefore, if the Cylons are alive why can they not breed themselves?
But as we have seen in our real world just as clearly as the one RDM&Co has created for us -- Technology blurs lines originally defined by nature.

So, taxonomically, would you propose to place the cylons in their own Kingdom or Domain?

[Lightsabre]

Now I'm not arguing that what the Pegasus crew did was morally justified, it's not, but I think that the definition of a living organism you describe, requires that reproduction is intra-species, and this, the Cylons are incapable of.

Essentially, the humano-cylons will die out if they cannot find a way to reproduce organically. Although Boomer has conceived a child, it is of another species altogether. So, however many functions of a living organism Gina possesses, she's still one short. Which, IMHO, is what the Cylons are seeking to remedy with Boomer's child and their experiments on the Caprican survivors (

Spoiler:

and Starbuck's ovaries?

).

If, "Reproduction is one of God's commandments," then the cylons will not be spiritually fulfilled until they achieve it. Thus necessitating their hybridization with the Colonial humans.

So I think I'll stick with the idea that Gina's rape is an atrocity, that it demeans the perpetrator and the victim, and leave it at that.

Sharon had sex with Helo and got pregnant. SHe can reproduce.
She is a cylon, so cylon's can reproduce.
THey CANNOT reproduce with each other, because they are artificial beings.
(This doesn't actually make any sense since someone obviously created the 12 human models).
Also, on that, Gina is not just a cylon, she's a HUMAN cylon. She was created, to use LCD2U's anology to mimic human behaviour. And she is true AI, that being a human level intelligence. She makes her own decision, plans and the like. She's not constrained by programming that we know of.
SHe's sentient and if nto human, then very close.

[madk99]

So, taxonomically, would you propose to place the cylons in their own Kingdom or Domain?

Hmmm...
Kingdon facitius
Phylum rufus chordata
Class effingo
Order deus
Family duodecim
Genus/Species Facitius sapien

Krazily
Persistant
Cylons
Often
Fight
Galactica
Survivors

BTW, for those that know latin better than I please excuse the anomalies in grammatical usage forms.

[madk99]

She's not constrained by programming that we know of.
SHe's sentient and if not human, then very close.

That's kind of my point. Previous definitions are almost useless here.

But as we have seen in our real world just as clearly as the one RDM&Co has created for us -- Technology blurs lines originally defined by nature.