|
Post by Sara on Nov 14, 2006 12:00:17 GMT -5
Oh, no. I didn't say that. It's not right - it's just not evil. IMO. Um... not right, but not evil. Does not compute. Well, say that when my Dad asks me how things are I say "oh, everything's fine" when I'd rather say "at this moment, I'd like to get you so doped up on tranquilizers you can barely keep your eyes open between now and the end of November, just so Mom and I can relax for two minutes." I've lied to him, which isn't right. But I think most folks would agree my lying wasn't evil either.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Nov 14, 2006 12:08:00 GMT -5
Unethical but not evil? I'm sympathetic - if it was Emily or Kitty in danger, my moral compass would swing a bit, too, although I don't know if I'd do more than consider the bad option. He really does love his daughter. It seems that he really does love her. So, that makes him not evil? I'd consider the bad option to protect my kids, too. Isn't that where the ends would justify the means comes in? So morally wrong is not evil depending on point of view? Who gets to decide that? A person steals (food, medicine, what have you) to save another's life or many lives. Morally wrong, arguably. Evil? Not in my opinion. As to who decides? I guess society has the final say. If it's morally wrong, but done for good I'd figure that society would lend some approval at some point to the act itself. Or not. I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 14, 2006 12:08:15 GMT -5
Unethical but not evil? I'm sympathetic - if it was Emily or Kitty in danger, my moral compass would swing a bit, too, although I don't know if I'd do more than consider the bad option. He really does love his daughter. It seems that he really does love her. So, that makes him not evil? I'd consider the bad option to protect my kids, too. Isn't that where the ends would justify the means comes in? So morally wrong is not evil depending on point of view? Who gets to decide that? It seems like this issue, parents protecting their children, is all about where to draw the line.
|
|
|
Post by fish1941 on Nov 14, 2006 12:35:14 GMT -5
It seems that he really does love her. So, that makes him not evil? I'd consider the bad option to protect my kids, too. Isn't that where the ends would justify the means comes in? So morally wrong is not evil depending on point of view? Who gets to decide that? It seems like this issue, parents protecting their childre, is all about where to draw the line. I don't think that Mr. Bennett drew the line. It would be nice to excuse his actions regarding Isaac, because he wants to save Claire. Trust me, I feel for the guy. But . . . just because someone acts out of love, does not mean that what they are doing is okay. Sometimes, evil can result from love or good intentions. On the other hand, doing something wrong can turn out to be beneficial. It really is hard to fathom whether one should commit a certain action . . . or not. Perhaps that is why the world might actually be gray.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 14, 2006 12:40:16 GMT -5
Oh, no. I didn't say that. It's not right - it's just not evil. IMO. Um... not right, but not evil. Does not compute. Oh, sure. There are all sorts of decisions one might make that aren't "good", persay, not the best choice, ethically or morally, but which still don't make one evil. Shades of gray. He's doing it to save his daughter from having her brain scooped out. I cut him all sorts of slack for that.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 14, 2006 12:45:56 GMT -5
Unethical but not evil? I'm sympathetic - if it was Emily or Kitty in danger, my moral compass would swing a bit, too, although I don't know if I'd do more than consider the bad option. He really does love his daughter. It seems that he really does love her. So, that makes him not evil? I'd consider the bad option to protect my kids, too. Isn't that where the ends would justify the means comes in? So morally wrong is not evil depending on point of view? Who gets to decide that? I think right now he's conflicted. He probably thinks that what he's been doing, capture-tag-and-release the people with powers, is for the greater good. He does regret the deaths of Claire's bio-parents, but not, apparently, enough to stop The Initiative project. Possibly he doesn't have that authority anyway; we don't know who's really running things and who he reports to. I'll be interested to see, if push comes to shove, whether he chooses Claire or the project. It reminds me, now that I think of it, of Giles killing Ben because he knew Buffy couldn't do it. The shades of grey are what makes this show so interesting - there are no absolute heroes or villains right now - we don't even know what set Sylar off in the first place. For all we know, he might be like Adam.
|
|
|
Post by fish1941 on Nov 14, 2006 16:48:18 GMT -5
It seems that he really does love her. So, that makes him not evil? I'd consider the bad option to protect my kids, too. Isn't that where the ends would justify the means comes in? So morally wrong is not evil depending on point of view? Who gets to decide that? I think right now he's conflicted. He probably thinks that what he's been doing, capture-tag-and-release the people with powers, is for the greater good. He does regret the deaths of Claire's bio-parents, but not, apparently, enough to stop The Initiative project. Possibly he doesn't have that authority anyway; we don't know who's really running things and who he reports to. I'll be interested to see, if push comes to shove, whether he chooses Claire or the project. It reminds me, now that I think of it, of Giles killing Ben because he knew Buffy couldn't do it. The shades of grey are what makes this show so interesting - there are no absolute heroes or villains right now - we don't even know what set Sylar off in the first place. For all we know, he might be like Adam. Sylar's existence all goes back to Mohinder's dad, when you think about it. What was it that Sylar had said in his recording to Chandra Suresh?
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 14, 2006 16:55:51 GMT -5
I think right now he's conflicted. He probably thinks that what he's been doing, capture-tag-and-release the people with powers, is for the greater good. He does regret the deaths of Claire's bio-parents, but not, apparently, enough to stop The Initiative project. Possibly he doesn't have that authority anyway; we don't know who's really running things and who he reports to. I'll be interested to see, if push comes to shove, whether he chooses Claire or the project. It reminds me, now that I think of it, of Giles killing Ben because he knew Buffy couldn't do it. The shades of grey are what makes this show so interesting - there are no absolute heroes or villains right now - we don't even know what set Sylar off in the first place. For all we know, he might be like Adam. Sylar's existence all goes back to Mohinder's dad, when you think about it. What was it that Sylar had said in his recording to Chandra Suresh? If you can track that down, I'd appreciate it. I've been taping the show for a friend, and my tapes are in Topanga.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 14, 2006 17:01:04 GMT -5
Apropo of nothing in particular, I was thinking about the title of Hiro's comic book.
Ninth Wonders reminded me of Ninth Wave, the song cycle on the B-side of Hounds of Love. Kate got the title from a poem by Tennyson, "The Holy Grail".
“And then the two Dropt to the cove, and watch’d the great sea fall, Wave after wave, each mightier than the last, Till last, a ninth one, gathering half the deep And full of voices, slowly rose and plunged Roaring, and all the wave was in a flame.”
Sounds like a gathering of heroes, or a nuclear explosion to me. It's probably just a coincidence, but kind of neat.
Anne, or a great disturbance in the Force
|
|
|
Post by newspikefan on Nov 14, 2006 19:00:52 GMT -5
A little of the beaten track, I found this on Wikipedia
Emerson lawsuit
On October 2, 2006, Emerson Electric Company, an appliance market competitor of NBC's owner General Electric, filed suit in federal court against NBC. The suit was regarding a scene that appeared in "Genesis" (the pilot episode) which depicted Claire Bennet reaching into an active garbage disposal unit — apparently Emerson's In-Sink-Erator — to retrieve a ring, and severely injuring her hand in the process. Emerson suit claims the scene "casts the disposer in an unsavory light, irreparably tarnishing the product" by suggesting that serious injuries will result "in the event consumers were to accidentally insert their hand into one."
Emerson is asking for a ruling barring future broadcasts of the pilot, which is available on NBC's website and has already aired on NBC Universal-owned cable networks USA and Sci Fi. It also seeks to block NBC from using any Emerson trademarks in the future.[11]
The episode in question was briefly unavailable on the iTunes store, but an edited version is now available for download.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Nov 14, 2006 20:19:03 GMT -5
A little of the beaten track, I found this on Wikipedia Emerson lawsuit On October 2, 2006, Emerson Electric Company, an appliance market competitor of NBC's owner General Electric, filed suit in federal court against NBC. The suit was regarding a scene that appeared in "Genesis" (the pilot episode) which depicted Claire Bennet reaching into an active garbage disposal unit — apparently Emerson's In-Sink-Erator — to retrieve a ring, and severely injuring her hand in the process. Emerson suit claims the scene "casts the disposer in an unsavory light, irreparably tarnishing the product" by suggesting that serious injuries will result "in the event consumers were to accidentally insert their hand into one." Emerson is asking for a ruling barring future broadcasts of the pilot, which is available on NBC's website and has already aired on NBC Universal-owned cable networks USA and Sci Fi. It also seeks to block NBC from using any Emerson trademarks in the future.[11] The episode in question was briefly unavailable on the iTunes store, but an edited version is now available for download. #rofl1# Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Nov 14, 2006 20:42:43 GMT -5
Just read an interesting theory on another board: what if the dead cheerleader in Isaac's painting is actually Jackie? 'Cause we know Jackie's been going around claiming to have been the one who pulled the firefighter out, so it's not impossible to think Sylar might wrongly target her instead.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Nov 14, 2006 20:49:25 GMT -5
Just read an interesting theory on another board: what if the dead cheerleader in Isaac's painting is actually Jackie? 'Cause we know Jackie's been going around claiming to have been the one who pulled the firefighter out, so it's not impossible to think Sylar might wrongly target her instead. That's a very interesting and plausible idea. I like it. Thanks for sharing, Sara!
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Nov 15, 2006 11:02:20 GMT -5
I went back and looked at my tape this morning, and while I didn't have a chance to do a side-by-side comparison the mysterious man watching Charlie in the diner wore a watch that appeared to be broken (at least, the outer crystal was) and with the hands pointing to a few minutes before midnight--I suspect a screen shot would confirm they were at seven minutes to the hour.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Nov 15, 2006 11:04:53 GMT -5
I went back and looked at my tape this morning, and while I didn't have a chance to do a side-by-side comparison the mysterious man watching Charlie in the diner wore a watch that appeared to be broken (at least, the outer crystal was) and with the hands pointing to a few minutes before midnight--I suspect a screen shot would confirm they were at seven minutes to the hour. Hmm. So Sylar killed the doctor, eh? Interesting. I'm assuming that Telekinetic guy and Sylar are one and the same (if only to account for "no fingerprints at the crime scene").
|
|