A reason why the Ancients might be the bad guys after all

[Bragi]

Right, so you come into a thread and arrogantly proclaim a victor without contributing any useful discussion and then go off and tag me for having bad form? Wake up *****.

Sticks and stones.

spg still wins.

[thenimf]

But thats not really arrogance. They came across an enemy that kicked their ass. They may have THOUGHT before meeting them that they could never be defeated, but we dont know that, and that would be arrogance. As far as we know, until that point they truly had never met an enemy to rival them, in which case it isnt arrogance, it is simple acceptance of fact. However if we find evidence later on that they allowed the wraith to grow because they felt they could contain them and wanted to study them, then yes that would be arrogance, but again that doesnt make them "bad guys" in the sense of being an antogonist on the show.

That's the thing though, their assumption that they could never be defeated meant that they didn't take precautions when exploring the galaxy. Morgan clearly expressed in The Rising that the Atlanteans were getting creamed because they had never met anyone who could rival them in battle - this means they were not prepared on any level to encounter such resistance. If the Atlanteans had any kind of concept of caution when exploring new galaxies there would be more than one chair in Atlantis, there would be sentry guns around the city and a whole bunch of other things that I'm sure the Atlanteans were perfectly capable of coming up with.

Considering they were in such a foreign place and would still remember the O'ri, on some level, it's unusual for them not to be prepared for something like the Wraith. I think you're a bit whack to not consider the Alterrans/Atlanteans arrogant.

[spg_1983]

That's the thing though, their assumption that they could never be defeated meant that they didn't take precautions when exploring the galaxy. Morgan clearly expressed in The Rising that the Atlanteans were getting creamed because they had never met anyone who could rival them in battle - this means they were not prepared on any level to encounter such resistance. If the Atlanteans had any kind of concept of caution when exploring new galaxies there would be more than one chair in Atlantis, there would be sentry guns around the city and a whole bunch of other things that I'm sure the Atlanteans were perfectly capable of coming up with.

Considering they were in such a foreign place and would still remember the O'ri, on some level, it's unusual for them not to be prepared for something like the Wraith. I think you're a bit whack to not consider the Alterrans/Atlanteans arrogant.

Im not saying they were not arrogant, Im just saying that it was well deserved. Why should they take such precautions? In the millions of years they had been around they had never met anyone that could stand up to them, it is completely normal for them to think the trend would continue, ESPECIALLY in a galaxy that they believed was completely devoid of life. That is why they went there. There was no intelligent life there, so they went to seed human life. Why should they take precautions against opposition that doesnt exist?

[JanusAncient]

That's a fallacy. Right and wrong change all the time and are constantly in flux. Once upon a time human sacrifice was right. Cannibalism was right. Rape wasn't against the law. Wife beating was right. Some place these things still are ok. If it's wrong in some places, right in others, how is it that it never changes?

I will only respond to this. Human sacrifice, cannibalism, rape, wife beating, theys things were never right, they were only accepted, there is a difference, between what is right and what is allowed, you must understand this.

[thenimf]

Im not saying they were not arrogant

But thats not really arrogance.

[spg_1983]

I will only respond to this. Human sacrifice, cannibalism, rape, wife beating, theys things were never right, they were only accepted, there is a difference, between what is right and what is allowed, you must understand this.

You need to study history. All through out history there have been cultures and societies that not only accepted those things but embraced them. The Aztecs lives revolved around human sacrifices. Half of the migratory tribes of the pacific islands were cannabilistic at one time. The ancient Mongols considered rape the appropriate way of showing a mans pwoer over his wife, and until the last 200 years, almost all societies embraced wife beating to one degree or another.

[thenimf]

You need to study history. All through out history there have been cultures and societies that not only accepted those things but embraced them. The Aztecs lives revolved around human sacrifices. Half of the migratory tribes of the pacific islands were cannabilistic at one time. The ancient Mongols considered rape the appropriate way of showing a mans pwoer over his wife, and until the last 200 years, almost all societies embraced wife beating to one degree or another.

But that's the thing, it's still didn't make it right - just accepted/praised. What's right is subjective to the people making the judgement. At this point, retrospectively, that was not good behaviour. It was accepted at the time, yes, but it was not by any means right. You never know though, a few more Republican terms and maybe society will suddenly deem wife beating and rape to be socially acceptable and Aztecs and Mongols will be viewed as pioneers or role models or whatever. But at this point in time, definitely not.

[spg_1983]

But that's the thing, it's still didn't make it right - just accepted/praised. What's right is subjective to the people making the judgement. At this point, retrospectively, that was not good behaviour. It was accepted at the time, yes, but it was not by any means right. You never know though, a few more Republican terms and maybe society will suddenly deem wife beating and rape to be socially acceptable and Aztecs and Mongols will be viewed as pioneers or role models or whatever. But at this point in time, definitely not.

It is not right by OUR social mores, but that doesn't make it wrong. That society decided it was right. We can look at it and decide it is wrong for us, and unacceptable in our society, but we can't say they were wrong. We weren't there, it wasn't our society. Who are we to say they were wrong? They could just as easily say the exact same thing about our society? Who's is the right one? Neither. We can only assess and apply right and wrong to our own current society because we can only fully incorporate all factors in our own time and place.

[thenimf]

It is not right by OUR social mores, but that doesn't make it wrong. That society decided it was right. We can look at it and decide it is wrong for us, and unacceptable in our society, but we can't say they were wrong. We weren't there, it wasn't our society. Who are we to say they were wrong? They could just as easily say the exact same thing about our society? Who's is the right one? Neither. We can only assess and apply right and wrong to our own current society because we can only fully incorporate all factors in our own time and place.

How does that contradict what I said? You just re-iterated my point

[spg_1983]

How does that contradict what I said? You just re-iterated my point

Did it? My bad, sorry, I guess I miss understood your attitude. I thought you were saying that because it was wrong by our current standards that made it wrong back then too. Its been a loooooong day.

[MarshAngel]

How does that contradict what I said? You just re-iterated my point

Yes and you proved my point. Right and wrong is changeable and is by no means absolute. There is no overarching universal precept. As long as it is being interpreted by humans it cannot be absolute as human culture by it's very nature is constantly changing.

[thenimf]

Did it? My bad, sorry, I guess I miss understood your attitude. I thought you were saying that because it was wrong by our current standards that made it wrong back then too. Its been a loooooong day.

Haha, yeah. Nah, I was definitely saying it was subject to scrutiny by whoever was making the judgement. Haha. It's only morning here in Australia.

[spg_1983]

Haha, yeah. Nah, I was definitely saying it was subject to scrutiny by whoever was making the judgement. Haha. It's only morning here in Australia.

You're an Aussie? Where abouts mate?

[JUNIOR]

We don't know that at all. All we know is that it produces an effect that causes interference on their plane of existence and neutralizes their ability to affect our plane. We have no evidence that it actually causes them harm, and Daniel said that it doesn't actually kill them. So the implication seems to be that it works like a putting a prisoner in a jail cell. You don't kill them but neutralize their ability to cause harm.

IMO the way that it was explained kind of sounded like they wouldn't be killed but they would just lose power to effect anything in our dimension. They would in effect be like those Sight Unseen bugs.

[spg_1983]

IMO the way that it was explained kind of sounded like they wouldn't be killed but they would just lose power to effect anything in our dimension. They would in effect be like those Sight Unseen bugs.

Thats how daniel explained it, and thats how I took it.