It's all Teyla's fault..

[not so ancient]

The "Should Sheppard Be Punished" managed to have a lot of sound and fury for Shep, but not much else in the way of reasoning. .

It beats me why you would bring up a thread where you showed you're all too willing to make huge and damning assumptions, and demonstrated an unchecked tendency toward snotty and/or vicious personal attacks on others that finally got the thread shut down. Strangely enough, all this arrogant judgment was accompanied by a crippling inability to choose appropriate standards applicable to a given situation.

It wasn't your shining moment. Evidently you don't know that. Awaken and caffeinate yourself.

Also, are 'poor' and 'uneducated' people automatically unethical? Seems that's what you're saying about Teyla. Her society is primitive technologically but the Athosians have demonstrated strong parental and community bonds, and a sense of honor. I didn't know money or diplomae made people good or bad. Guess we'll have to add that to the byzantine algorithm by which you presume to judge the ethics of others. I shall pencil in time to give a d@mn sometime in the next millenia. I'll recommend that course to others.

[not so ancient]

I'm not a fan of much of the SGA cast so far, I personally dislike Teyla's character and basically every other one save Dr. Mckay and Dr. Z. The other characters are all too uppity for my taste. .

One might wonder why you watch the show.

[not so ancient]

but seriously putz what does it mean?

Putz is Yiddish for the male sex organ.

It is not usually used in that way in English. It usually means "fool, stupid person, idiot."

[Darth Buddha]

It beats me why you would bring up a thread where you showed you're all too willing to make huge and damning assumptions, and demonstrated an unchecked tendency toward snotty and/or vicious personal attacks on others that finally got the thread shut down. Strangely enough, all this arrogant judgment was accompanied by a crippling inability to choose appropriate standards applicable to a given situation.

Thank you... I'll now demonstrate you to be guilty of everything you allege I am guilty of.

Also, are 'poor' and 'uneducated' people automatically unethical? Seems that's what you're saying about Teyla.

Here we go again. The simple answer to your imaginative distortion is: nonsense made up out of whole cloth.

My mention of "sophistication" was meant only that the concept of a mission where you were on recon only, and the rescuing of prisoners was verboten, might well be wholly alien to her thinking. So judging her harshly for not being as cold blooded as Jack Bauer from 24 seems rather unfair. It's a matter of experience, not moral superiority or inferiority.

You've managed to take what was something intended only to get Teyla "off the hook" and managed to turn it into condemnation by a series of assumptions. You assumed the argument was ethical, though it seems to me more likely you simply accused me of it falsely. You assumed that I implied some sort of superiority to the more sophisticated view (though again, I supsect you knew full well that there was no such intent, and merely found it convenient to you mudslinging to make it up) when I merely meant them to be different. Jack Bauer IS very sophisticated. Ethically more grounded? Superior in some other way? Tactically perhaps, but nothing else.

They ARE a simpler people, who probably don't have any more time to engage in advanced ethical debate than they have advanced calculus courses, so they are, relatively, "uneducated", but that doesn't mean ignorant, nor was that ever implied.

Her society is primitive technologically but the Athosians have demonstrated strong parental and community bonds, and a sense of honor. I didn't know money or diplomae made people good or bad. Guess we'll have to add that to the byzantine algorithm by which you presume to judge the ethics of others. I shall pencil in time to give a d@mn sometime in the next millenia. I'll recommend that course to others.

R-i-i-i-ght. As you suggested caffeine, I'll suggest some heavy dose antipsychotics for you... your "imagination" seems to blend into your perceptions of what is and is not actually said.

Though you raise an interesting conundrum. Which is more "ethical"? A more down to earth existence such as Teyla's folk, or a militaristic influenced subculture like the Atlantis expedition?

I personally suspect that the less "sophisticated" folks would probably score better most days. Might not be the best to send on a military mission, but in terms of who I'd rather have as a loyal friend, I think I'll take the less complicated folks. Returning to my Jack Bauer metaphor, Jack might be great if the end of the world is coming, but nobody lives there every day. Most days are more "down to earth"... the "down to earth" decision of Teyla to try to rescue some of her allies when she and Shep come to mind. I'd certainly hope my allies would go as far out on a limb for ME!

So your rant DID have the benefit of raising an interesting point, even if you did get it diametrically backwards.... since I'm sure I haven't seen your last rant, or your last attempt to spin some argument by attributing all sorts of dastardly implications to any statement I make, I can only hope you'll manage to stumble across a few more acorns whilst slinging your mud.

Of course, there was always this:

Please refrain from addressing me or responding to my posts at all in the future, and I will be sure to extend that same courtesy to you.

No doubt you'll make a similar ploy now that your dubious reasoning and obvious attempts to misquote and falsely attribute have been yet again exposed. As last time, you've tried to make a straw man of my arguments so you can dissect them. Will you now bellyache when called on it a second time as well?

Talk about standards..

[David]

Let's try to refrain from personal attacks in public please. If you must converse about your objections to someone else's views, conduct these in private.

Thank you!

[not so ancient]

Ah, the ethical nadir returns, with a vengence...

More judgmental insults from Darth Buddha. I'm shocked, shocked at such conduct! (/Captain Renault, "Casablanca")

When I question your ethical judgment, I'm attacking you viciously...

It wasn't a simple question of an ethical debate. You indulged yourself in angry and petty ad hominem attacks on me including:

"You scare me. You are a voter. You are a potential juror."
"mouthing the arguments of the monsters of history"
"moral relativism, based on vengeance not ethics"

Uncalled for, unjustified, unappreciated, unacceptable. The thread speaks for itself.

my goodness, if you were asked a question in Sunday school (or your equivalent), how would you manage?

If my Sunday School teacher were to ask me an ethical question, it wouldn't be to indulge her ego in a hate-based judgment based on my hypothetical reaction to a predatory alien spy in a fictional universe. If, God knows how, but if, the whole conversation had been held with her, she would have to know the facts of the Atlantis universe - that another sentient species has telepathic hivemind and also eats us. She has the sense to know those facts make our human/Wraith interactions fundamentally different from human/human interactions. Application of a human-based standards to the situation does not fit. Finally, if she asked the question and I answered as I did, in detail, she'd never twist my response to suit her prejudged position.

I have to wonder about someone who responds to challenges to their ethical judgments so... violently.

Ah, now the insults start again. An insinuation that I'm violent?

Just had to slip in one more personal attack, didn't you? You have poor impulse control, don't you?

This is positively comical considering your claims of being ethical, your attempt to characterize me otherwise, and your attempt to characterize the previous conversation as a mere discussion, instead of a hate-based attack.

We have more than enough of that in the fundamentalist waves, here, there, and everywhere. Or at least by my standards.

Now I'm a fundamentalist?

The neighbors are going to call the police because I'm laughing so hard.

Though your ability to jump to yet another conclusion for the purpose of yet another snit is rather diagnostic... not that I really NEEDED another example.

Charming!

R-i-i-i-ght. As you suggested caffeine, I'll suggest some heavy dose antipsychotics for you...

Wow. That sentence speaks volumes about what kind of ethical guy you are!

No doubt you'll make a similar ploy when your dubious reasoning and obvious attempts to misquote and falsely attribute yet again...

Misquotes and false attributions? Sounds like I'm being called a liar.

As I said, the thread speaks for itself.

Please, do point this out a misquote or false attribution from me. No, really, I insist. Everyone wants to see! So do I! It should be easy to point to just one of these misquotes or false attributions. Piece of cake. Go on. You know you want to!

::::taps foot, waiting::::

[Darth Buddha]

Let's try to refrain from personal attacks in public please. If you must converse about your objections to someone else's views, conduct these in private.

Thank you!

Not a major problem, though yet again, "not an ancient" feels entitled to that parting shot.

Please, do point this out a misquote or false attribution from me. No, really, I insist. Everyone wants to see! So do I! It should be easy to point to just one of these misquotes or false attributions. Piece of cake. Go on. You know you want to!

Please, "not so ancient", read the response again, I edited it to make it more straighforward for ya. No ethics were inferred. No superiority on any level but tactics. All the rest is all you. Creative, though.

I do like the whole ethical question of whether a military mindset or a villagers mindset is "superior" "inferior" or just "different", so I'll be running with that without any malice toward "not so ancient".

It IS actually an interesting question, though not one I had intended to weigh in on at first.

[not so ancient]

Let's try to refrain from personal attacks in public please. If you must converse about your objections to someone else's views, conduct these in private.

Thank you!

Sorry, David. I composed my reply and posted it before I saw your statement here.

[Darth Buddha]

So, "not so ancient", dazzle and amaze me.

Which is "ethical" by your standards? The tactical decision to NOT pick up culling survivors whlst on a recon mission, or the loyalty based decision to stay and pick some folks up?

Is it "Teyla's Fault" yet again, or was Teyla being a good and upright individual?

Don't worry, I won't go putting horns on you.

[skye1974]

So, "not so ancient", dazzle and amaze me.

Which is "ethical" by your standards? The tactical decision to NOT pick up culling survivors whlst on a recon mission, or the loyalty based decision to stay and pick some folks up?

Is it "Teyla's Fault" yet again, or was Teyla being a good and upright individual?

I'd like to get others' opinions on this question, too. Can we do it without the personal rivalry you two have going on? I really don't want this thread closed.

[not so ancient]

Not a major problem, though yet again, "not an ancient" feels entitled to that parting shot.

As I explained to David, I was drafting a response at the time he had asked that this discussion take a different tone. I didn't see his response, nor this of yours, before I hit 'post'. That's just a matter of bad timing.

But, of course, you felt free to fabricate that I had "again" tried to get 'a parting shot.'

I never got the last word with you in our previous discussion. I shut down further discussion with you, as your response was beneath dignifying with a rebuttal.

Again, the thread speaks for itself.

I'll be running with that without any malice toward "not so ancient".

HAH!!!!!!

[Darth Buddha]

Yeah, not so ancient, I think your moral arguments do speak for themselves, so we are very much agreed. As to malice? Whatever deficiencies I may think you have certainly don't raise you to the point of requiring malice. You really aren't worth that kind of investment to me. If you resond to the post as made, I'll be happy to evaluate it on its own merits.

But back to the topic at hand: I'm just looking for a response to my actual post this time.

Not just not so ancient, please, the more, the merrier.

I've posited that Sheppard is best represented by the metaphor of Jack Bauer. Mission oriented, sophisticated, but yet brutal, calculated and unfeeling while on the job. He operates solely on the utilitarian need to get the job done, and damn the personal costs to anyone.

Teyla is more the simple life, the villager who judges things by everyday and personal morality. She doesn't work as well with the abstract requirements of the mission, and is more likely to have that direct gut reaction.

Which, if either, is more ethical?

[not so ancient]

So, "not so ancient", dazzle and amaze me.

Which is "ethical" by your standards? The tactical decision to NOT pick up culling survivors whlst on a recon mission, or the loyalty based decision to stay and pick some folks up?

Is it "Teyla's Fault" yet again, or was Teyla being a good and upright individual?

This is the situation:

A panicked, terrified human victim, cocooned for future feeding by the Wraith, cried out for help to Tyrus and Teyla.

Teyla tried to shush Victim first, and then help him. Tyrus said to leave Victim. Victim's pleas continued, loudly. Tyrus shot Victim to silence the cries for help. The Wraith came to investigate the noise. Tyrus fell, Teyla escaped.

The Atlantis/Genii mission was not to rescue living humans from the Wraith ship but to get intel, enabling a large-scale attack on the Wraith, and thereby saving many human lives.

Setting out to save humans while on the ship was absolutely incompatible with the purpose and scale of the mission. They didn't go looking for it, but the situation with Victim happened anyway.

Should they have tried to save him? Yes. It's the right thing to do and achievable within the scope of the mission.

In Tyrus's view, the mission could not flex to accomodate even one rescue. In Teyla's, it could.

If Teyla had been alone, she would have shushed the Victim, freed him from the cocoon and gotten him back to the Jumper. Victim didn't look like he had been fed upon already. Compare his situation to when Brandon was partially fed upon by the Wraith in The Defiant One. Brandon was altered in appearance, paralyzed and severely debilitated. If Victim had already been fed upon, it might have been a different judgment call as to whether he could be saved and how that would work with the mission. Losing the whole Atlantis/Genii team to save one doomed man would be foolish. Perhaps the right thing for Teyla to have done if Victim had been partially fed-upon would have been to silently slit his throat and end his suffering. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

If nobody had been arguing with Teyla to leave Victim to his fate, Victim would have seen that Teyla was rescuing him, and had no more reason to cry out. Of course, poor Victim could have been out of his mind with pain or terror, and continued making noise.

Were the Wraith summoned by Victim's initial cries, by the Teyla/Tyrus/Victim discussion including more outcries by the Victim, or by Tyrus' shots? We'll never know. Tyrus and Teyla didn't know either.

If Victim's initial outcry had not been heard by the Wraith, his rescue could have been conducted quietly, without detection. If the Wraith were alerted to intrusion by Victim's initial cries, then the damage was already done, and helping Victim put them at no additional risk.

Tyrus might not have agreed with Teyla's choice to help Victim, but there would have been less noise if he had gone along with it. Tyrus' reaction itself was noisy, and noise, whatever the source created further danger to himself, Teyla and the mission.

It's a false characterization to say that Sheppard, or Tyrus, have a 'military' mindset and that Teyla's is that of a 'villager.' Teyla did exactly what Sheppard did in 'Rising' - she would not leave someone in the hands of the enemy. That's neither 'military' nor 'village', neither 'tactical' nor 'loyal' - it's just right.

Don't worry, I won't go putting horns on you.

Since you've already denounced me as a violent, fundamentalist, unethical, psychotic liar, I don't think there's too much left to hurl at me. I mean, you could say I smell bad, or that I'm unkind to baby kittens or that I insult sweet old grannies and make them cry. Have at it! You know you want to.

[not so ancient]

[snip lies and bullsh!t and insults because they're not worth response]

I've posited that Sheppard is best represented by the metaphor of Jack Bauer. Mission oriented, sophisticated, but yet brutal, calculated and unfeeling while on the job. He operates solely on the utilitarian need to get the job done, and damn the personal costs to anyone.

You're wrong. Look what Sheppard did in "Rising." He went back for Sumner, Bates and the Athosians. Weir weighed the chances of success of a rescue, Sheppard did not. Sheppard argued with Weir based on his conviction that trying to save those captured by the Wraith was the right thing to do, even if it was dangerous.

Bauer and Sheppard are light years apart in who they are, what they are trained to do, their mission, their position, their situations. Comparison between them is like comparing apples and zinnias.

It's funny to hear you call Sheppard brutal, calculated and unfeeling since you previously argued that Sheppard killed Wraith Bob in a fit of uncontrolled anger. Different day, different position. Sort of relativistic, isn't it?

[Darth Buddha]

This is the situation:

A panicked, terrified human victim, cocooned for future feeding by the Wraith, cried out for help to Tyrus and Teyla.

Teyla tried to shush Victim first, and then help him. Tyrus said to leave Victim. Victim's pleas continued, loudly. Tyrus shot Victim to silence the cries for help. The Wraith came to investigate the noise. Tyrus fell, Teyla escaped.

The Atlantis/Genii mission was not to rescue living humans from the Wraith ship but to get intel, enabling a large-scale attack on the Wraith, and thereby saving many human lives.

Setting out to save humans while on the ship was absolutely incompatible with the purpose and scale of the mission. They didn't go looking for it, but the situation with Victim happened anyway.

That's the utilitarian argument. Risking exposure of the mission risked MORE lives than rescuing the single victim. It's a "greater good" argument.

You posed it rather well... without embellishment, embroidery, or other creative additions. Kudos.

Should they have tried to save him? Yes. It's the right thing to do and achievable within the scope of the mission.

In Tyrus's view, the mission could not flex to accomodate even one rescue. In Teyla's, it could.

The argument that the mission could have been successfully achieved while rescuing one victim (and if one, why not others?) is YOUR judgment. So that's an embellishment. Sloppy, putting in your opinions with the facts... but perfectly fair if you actually LABELLED them as such.

Instead of giving ya further grief, I'll treat it as as your opnion as it is, and evaluate it as a hypothetical as it should be.

IF they could have done it, and KNEW within reason they could have done it, then yes, of course you are right, the rescue was the right thing to do.

IF they don't know if they could have done it, and the risk seemed great, then from the UTILITARIAN POV, it wasn't the right thing to do.

If Teyla had been alone, she would have shushed the Victim, freed him from the cocoon and gotten him back to the Jumper. Victim didn't look like he had been fed upon already. Compare his situation to when Brandon was partially fed upon by the Wraith in The Defiant One. Brandon was altered in appearance, paralyzed and severely debilitated. If Victim had already been fed upon, it might have been a different judgment call as to whether he could be saved and how that would work with the mission. Losing the whole Atlantis/Genii team to save one doomed man would be foolish. Perhaps the right thing for Teyla to have done if Victim had been partially fed-upon would have been to silently slit his throat and end his suffering. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

If nobody had been arguing with Teyla to leave Victim to his fate, Victim would have seen that Teyla was rescuing him, and had no more reason to cry out. Of course, poor Victim could have been out of his mind with pain or terror, and continued making noise.

Were the Wraith summoned by Victim's initial cries, by the Teyla/Tyrus/Victim discussion including more outcries by the Victim, or by Tyrus' shots? We'll never know. Tyrus and Teyla didn't know either.

So you are assuming, despite the never know, that Teyla could have pulled it off? Or you are assuming we can't know? Those are two different things.. if you could clarify your position I'd appreciate it.

Now the situation in "The Defiant One" is comparable in regards to state of the victim, and that's a good call. However, that information wasn't available at that time either. A utilitarian decision is highly dependent on the information that INFORMS the decision.

However, the assumption that it was SAFE to rescue, as, say, in The Defiant one (that's MY idea, I'm not falsely attributing it to you... if you like it, run with it, if you don't, no harm).

So the whole thing boils down to the utilitarian argument of the risk is too great, vs. the do unto others of rescuing and saying the risk wasn't.

It's a false characterization to say that Sheppard, or Tyrus, have a 'military' mindset and that Teyla's is that of a 'villager.' Teyla did exactly what Sheppard did in 'Rising' - she would not leave someone in the hands of the enemy. That's neither 'military' nor 'village', neither 'tactical' nor 'loyal' - it's just right.

Actually, Shep was in a situation where he did NOT know the risk of the rescue, and in fact, he made a "military" decision once there to kill his Colonel to prevent him from revealing information. He was in fact, VERY tactical and military.

The false characterization ... though in this case I think it more likely you just mistakenly failed to see the difference ... is that the decisions were again INFORMED differently. When he went after the Colonel, he didn't know what he was up against. He didn't know that stealth was necessary because they were up against an impossibly overwhelming force. The rescue in "Rising" and the recon mission were two VERY different animals.

But here is my take on the Do Unto Others vs. the Greater Good arguments: to expect Teyla to operate under a Greater Good calculation involving nuclear strikes on the Wraith Ships, involving military tactics, etc., is wholly unfair.

She's NOT military. She's NOT accustomed to thinking about grand strategies, and so on. That's all NEW to her. She responded as an individual person, not a soldier. She responded as a neighbor would respond to a neighbor in need. That's entirely defensible.

I feel those who feel Teyla should have made the calculated Jack Bauer decision are judging her unfairly. No way. To expect a villager accustomed to living and fighting in a small society to suddenly operate like a military officer dealing with grand scale operations? That's crazy!

Since you've already denounced me as a violent,

No, I said you reacted violently. You still are. Verbally. The word use IS entirely legitmate. Goodness. You can manage the language better than that.

fundamentalist,

No, I found the heat of your reaction seemed to be akin to that of fundamentalists. I never actually called you a fundamentalist. I didn't have sufficient data to go either way. You are just very excitable.

unethical,

Well, as I actually could only find your REASONING to be problematic, I never said YOU were unethical. Your judgment? Scary. But for all I know, you've never done an unethical thing in your life.

psychotic

Nope, just in need of a serious dose of reality. You wanted me to "wake up" via a metaphorical stimulant, I want you to "get a grip" via a dose of metaphorical haldol.

liar,

Well what do YOU call your creativity in "embellishing" my statements above? It's certainly not HONESTY, now is it?

I don't think there's too much left [to hurl at me. I mean, you could say I smell bad, or that I'm unkind to baby kittens or that I insult sweet old grannies and make them cry. Have at it! You know you want to.

No, actually, I don't. Pointing out the falsehoods above is entirely adequate.