|
Post by Karen on Oct 9, 2006 22:04:20 GMT -5
Ah. Ok - so they need the humans, why? Because baby cylon/humans don't have a soul? I thought they needed humans because they couldn't get themselves pregnant and/or form a cylon/cylon embryo. Why the need for the embryo, if they can just pop out a new copy whenever they want? Why do they want babies so badly? ETA: You are right about the need for humans to get the embryo. I hope I don't seem argumentative. I'm mostly arguing with myself.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 9, 2006 22:08:51 GMT -5
Ah. Ok - so they need the humans, why? Because baby cylon/humans don't have a soul? Don't the cylons think the cylons have souls? Otherwise, what's the point of their god? Or are we just only able to view it from our own perspective? <edit> Also, what Liz said. *blinks, slightly non-functional* LOL! I am not making much sense. I should go to bed, too. I'm not sure about the souls - they have a hard time feeling love. They need the humans for something other than just using them for procreation means. With so much derision for the humans, what exactly do they have in mind for the cylon/human babies? Doesn't make sense to me. Or is it the fact that they want to eventually make the humans worship them? Because what's the point of being all powerful if you don't have minions to love you. //star trek//
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Oct 9, 2006 22:08:52 GMT -5
I thought they needed humans because they couldn't get themselves pregnant and/or form a cylon/cylon embryo. Why the need for the embryo, if they can just pop out a new copy whenever they want? Why do they want babies so badly? Dunno. Based on what we've seen, I'm guessing there's a few short circuits somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 9, 2006 22:15:33 GMT -5
Ah. Ok - so they need the humans, why? Because baby cylon/humans don't have a soul? I thought they needed humans because they couldn't get themselves pregnant and/or form a cylon/cylon embryo. It's be just as easy (read: extraordinarily difficult) and far less ethically problematic to solve the cylon/cylon problem than to try to forcibly breed with humans. ETA: In fact, thinking on this further and committing the unforgivable sin of applying too much actual science to science fiction: If the Cylons are sterile amongst themselves, what reason did they have to believe that they'd be fertile with humans? The sterility problem, then, clearly isn't an issue of not enough sperm or infertile eggs.... So it's a sperm/egg recognition problem. As though the Cylon men and the Cylon women are a different species from one another. Or...the embryos are inviable. Like maybe they're pseudoaneuploid due to a failure to properly de-imprint the genes in the gametes, so the offspring often wind up with too many or not enough functional copies of important genes. Put more simply - the Cylon gametes could lack something critical to making offspring, but the human gametes (properly evolved and all) have it. Wouldn't it be easier to figure out what "it" was and then apply "it" to embryos growing in a Petri dish, though? Thus avoiding the whole interspecies mating block issue? OTOH, maybe it isn't about "can't" so much as limited gene pool. There are 12 models. Not much variability. Not nearly enough for a healthy gene pool.
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Oct 9, 2006 22:37:24 GMT -5
Oooh, Rachael. I can't apply myself to the actual science right now but you've made me think of a question...
What if all the 12 models are human clones that were "uploaded" with the memories/backstories of the humans they replaced (in whatever way they do that)? And what if Cylons like actual human-like babies because they start off as more of a clean slate? Because I can't think of any one of the 12 skinjob models that hasn't brainscrewed the humans they encounter as much as possible, whether it's torture, manpulation or trying to "love" them or some frakked up combination of all those things. A human-type baby would be a perfect psychological experiment, wouldn't it? Including the one Loeben presented Kara with. Not forgetting Sharon's, but the Cylons knew about that one and eagerly anticipated it.
Blending human and Cylon would present the relatively newly-self-aware Cylons with a wonderful understanding of not only themselves "from scratch" but, as part of that understanding, their "creators" and how those different aspects interact. Because, frankly, humans and Cylons don't seem to be able to do that on a collective level. Like most human "enemies" they can integrate individually, though.
<edit> Meh. Wandered off into the random. Perhaps I should just go to bed...
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 9, 2006 22:45:15 GMT -5
Fire bad, tree pretty.
I may have more constructive things to say after I eat that bowl of chili that's calling my name.
And also, the beer isn't helping.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew on Oct 10, 2006 2:55:02 GMT -5
<snip> The interesting position I see is that some would defend Ellen's behavior - acting in self-interest over her feelings and denying that it is a self interest. If love isn't a self interest, then Marriage means nothing and boundaries in relationships need not exist. Oh, of course self-interest is an element of love. But you're being disingenuous here, by leaving out the fact that a lot of that self-interest manifests as concern for the person one's in love with. Loving someone means placing their welfare equal to and above your own: hence all the themes of sacrifice for the ones we love present in the literature of our culture: dying so that those you love may live. Ellen is trying to save the man that she loves with the tools at her disposal that she prides herself as being best at the use of. I don't see this as her cheating on Saul, so much as her trying to save him, by whatever means she can: and I don't think that Saul would agree with her doing it: not so much because he gives a damn anymore if she "cats around" on him, but more because the resistance is as important to him as his continued survival is to Ellen. You are mixing apples and watermelons here. Marriage is at its root an economic and social institution (usually for the provision of the welfare of children). If you are lucky, you get to be married to someone you love, and Ellen and Saul do indeed love each other, as effed up as their relationship is. I am so glad I don't live in a black-and-white world, where everything is so binary and absolute. I mean, I'm all for self-interest. But claiming that Ellen's actions and her desperate betrayals to save Saul are anything like Baltar's continued pattern of negligence of security (letting Natasi have access to the security mainframe in the first place), lies to protect his cover as the person responsible for the Cylon penetration of the Colonial defenses, willingness to be a puppet for the Cylon Occupation (though granted, he did have an "almost there" moment when he nearly took the path of death rather than signing on the death warrent of the 200: having Natasi in his head broke him), his manipulation of emotions and the data regarding birth rates to set Roslin up, GIVING GINA A FREAKING NUKE and thereby destroying most of their plant biodiversity (and allegedly calling the Cylons in on them)... Yep. Ellen's desperate attempts to save one man, even as she realizes she is losing her soul in the effort, are EXACTLY the same as all of that.
|
|
|
Post by havoc on Oct 10, 2006 10:52:51 GMT -5
<snip> The interesting position I see is that some would defend Ellen's behavior - acting in self-interest over her feelings and denying that it is a self interest. If love isn't a self interest, then Marriage means nothing and boundaries in relationships need not exist. Oh, of course self-interest is an element of love. But you're being disingenuous here, by leaving out the fact that a lot of that self-interest manifests as concern for the person one's in love with. Loving someone means placing their welfare equal to and above your own: hence all the themes of sacrifice for the ones we love present in the literature of our culture: dying so that those you love may live. Ellen is trying to save the man that she loves with the tools at her disposal that she prides herself as being best at the use of. I don't see this as her cheating on Saul, so much as her trying to save him, by whatever means she can: and I don't think that Saul would agree with her doing it: not so much because he gives a damn anymore if she "cats around" on him, but more because the resistance is as important to him as his continued survival is to Ellen. You are mixing apples and watermelons here. Marriage is at its root an economic and social institution (usually for the provision of the welfare of children). If you are lucky, you get to be married to someone you love, and Ellen and Saul do indeed love each other, as effed up as their relationship is. I am so glad I don't live in a black-and-white world, where everything is so binary and absolute. I mean, I'm all for self-interest. But claiming that Ellen's actions and her desperate betrayals to save Saul are anything like Baltar's continued pattern of negligence of security (letting Natasi have access to the security mainframe in the first place), lies to protect his cover as the person responsible for the Cylon penetration of the Colonial defenses, willingness to be a puppet for the Cylon Occupation (though granted, he did have an "almost there" moment when he nearly took the path of death rather than signing on the death warrent of the 200: having Natasi in his head broke him), his manipulation of emotions and the data regarding birth rates to set Roslin up, GIVING GINA A FREAKING NUKE and thereby destroying most of their plant biodiversity (and allegedly calling the Cylons in on them)... Yep. Ellen's desperate attempts to save one man, even as she realizes she is losing her soul in the effort, are EXACTLY the same as all of that. I am mixing nothing. I didn't bring up the issue of sex. Sex had nothing to do with my initial statement. She took their map and fed it to the cylons. That act put the lives of others in danger to save her own neck and that of her husband. She is making an ultimate moral decision about the worth of others vs that of herself and her husband. Has nothing to do with whether she's sleeping with a cylon or not. She was sleeping with half the fleet before she slept with the cylon. At this point, what's one more in the grander scheme of things? It also happens to be something we've all known about pretty much since Ellen was introduced. I personally wouldn't put up with her behavior; but, that's me. My point was of betraying everyone else - not Saul. She's done that repeatedly - nothing new there. On the other hand, when fidelity to her mate can't be counted on, it can hardly be expected that she might have any fidelity to anyone else. Stands to reason that if one can't excersize fidelity in a major area of their life, it is likely they may have a problem with it elsewhere. And here we see that possibility played out. No surprises. As for the self interest issue - no, I'm not being disingenuous. Love is a self interest in the context of a crowd. Between the individuals, they may place the life of the other above their own; but, that is not the dynamic we are seeing here. She's placing her life and Saul's above those of her compatriots. She is making a decision, quite literally, that her and her husband are more worthy of life than the crowd when they're all in the same situation. This is pretty basic to me even without my family's military background. It's just common sense for me. But, if you really need to have it reinforced, just ask a serving member of the US armed forces what they'ed do to one of their own that sold out their platoon to the enemy to save their own neck. We have enough case studies of POW's and serving soldiers that have done so that one really need not ask; but, I still encourage it. Treason would be the nicest and least offensive word they'll use. And it isn't from bias. As for the comparison between Ellen and Baltar, it isn't the volume of one's actions that makes one a traitor, it is the actions themselves. Stalin and Hitler both murdered millions under their individual charges. Yet Hitler's name is said with more venom than that of Stalin and Stalin murdered far more than Hitler dreamt of. Interestingly, we actually had a president refer to Stalin as "uncle Joe". Can't imagine the flack that would come from a president using the same words with regard to Hitler.. wouldn't be pretty. Hitler killed, what 6-8 million, I forget the numbers. Stalin killed between 30 and 40 million. Hitler is seen as the anti-christ and Stalin is referred to as an "aggrarian reformer". By that sort of logic, perhaps Ellen is the purely evil one and Baltar is just a reformer. Alas, we aren't dealing with such nonsense here. I bring up that comparison to illustrate the point. If I commit an act of treason, I'm a traitor. If I commit 300 acts of treason, I'm a traitor. The number of acts isn't the issue. Baltar had been a traitor by his own actions indirectly or secretly right up till he signed an official document ordering the murder of those under his charge in order to save his own skin. Ellen didn't sign a piece of paper, she gave away troop position to the enemy. What Baltar did by mistake in handing access to defense computers to the cylons for a roll in the sack, Ellen did wittingly and knowingly. Not on the same scale; but, scale isn't the crime. She might as well have signed the death warrant for Baltar. Go back and watch the last few moments of the episode. How many do you see that died because of what she did. And she's not merely jeopardized them, she put Galactica and the fleet at risk as well - kindof ups the scale again; but, scale isn't the crime. We do have different approaches to this it would seem. I do tend to look for the clarity where you look for the excuses or reasons. My intention is not beligerance any more than I think yours are. To me, the issues aren't the grey. The circumstances may be; but, the issues are not. I'm not necessarily a brave soul; but, were I pressed to give you up or take a bullet, you'd still be breathing. That is my ethic, and at least one person on this forum can vouch for it. I'm a very forgiving sort; but, it doesn't stop me from seeing clearly what i've dealt with. I had a step parent nearly kill me in a blind rage as I defended a loved one. I stepped in and took the beating a younger brother would have recieved. When consciousness began returning, I was laying on the floor with a paramedic on my chest telling his partner that my eyes were fixed and dialate. I then noticed the light shining in my face. The medics moved away to get a cart and I started coughing blood onto the bloodsoaked floor under me while a cop slapped the floor and called out my name several feet away. There is some amount of blur to how much time passed there; but, the medics were gone thinking I was dead and the cop didn't think I was. At the hospital, the doctors were enraged and beat faced after looking at the xrays of the damage my stepdad did to me. It was the summer prior to my Junior year in Highschool if memory serves. My brother is about 2.5 years behind me. He would have been toast. The only reason I lived through it is my nose touched nothing between the last hit and the floor. The bones in the base of my nose were pulvarized and splintered.. one more hit would have driven the mass into my brain = cancel christmas. To this day, I have a severely limited sense of smell. I can and did forgive the action that nearly killed me. I didn't have to be in that position. I could have taken Ellen Tigh's position and decided "better little brother than me". He wasn't anymore deserving than I was of that sort of treatment. The one difference here is that she isn't failing to jump in the place of a loved one. She is shoving a whole group of people into the place of a loved one because what she wants is more important than their lives to her. She sacrificed others. What I did was not heroic. Nor is it the worst thing I've lived through in my life. Nor is it the only betrayal I've lived through in my life. I see people as forgiveable. I see everyone as having equal claim on life - equal right to it. I see betrayal as selfish cowardice. One can line up all the excuses one wishes. But, boiling it down, that's usually what it comes to. Someone won't do the right thing for selfish reasons. Doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. What pretends at complication is mere scenery. Ther person is still forgiveable. But that doesn't make the betrayal any less terrible or excuseable. Personally, I find that being clear, pointed and honest puts on display by example why fidelity to people and cause is important. The damage caused by failing to be is usually far more expansive than would otherwise be the case. Baltar might have died for not signing the order; but, he wouldn't be a traitor in that instant and others might not have died with cover from his action in signing the order. Publically, the cylons didn't sign the order, their own did. The impact of that betrayal is pretty big. With Ellen, had she refused to act, Saul might be in the brig or dead; but, at least two fellow humans would still be alive if not more and Galactica and their rescue would not be at risk. Galactica had surprise on it's side till she betrayed everyone for her own selfish wishes for Saul. But the rest of the world be damned... That's what I see. It is clear to me. And if the others find out what she did, I'm sure it will be clear to Saul as well. She acted out of selfish interests for her little part of humanity and put the rest of humanity in jeopardy. I don't see how one can minimize that. I'm game to listen; but, I haven't seen it.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 10, 2006 11:24:03 GMT -5
She was sleeping with half the fleet before she slept with the cylon. At this point, what's one more in the grander scheme of things? So we're clear, it's remarks like that, above, that tend to get my back up. I can't speak for anyone else, but that sort of thing helps to make me unreceptive to your arguments. It's as irrelevant to the conversation as the "mams" remark, and yet you include it. Nope. It doesn't "stand to reason". That's a logical fallacy - the sweeping generalization. And loyalty in sex relationships has never been shown to relate in any way to loyalty in other areas of life. Finally, she may not be sexually loyal, but all of the available evidence says she's loyal in love as she sees it. It doesn't matter how you see it - what matters is that the character is true to herself, and in her mind, what she's doing is the best choice she can make, given the circumstances. It's completely understandable. Also, you should reread the thread. No one is defending Ellen Tigh's actions. We're defending her motivations. And arguing that she is NOT the same thing as Baltar. Not sure I can agree there. The scale of the offense matters greatly, to me, in some instances. Okay. I'm going to have to reiterate what Shan said earlier: This is basically trolling for a fight, and unacceptable public behavior in this forum. You're treading very close to violating the rules about poster bashing with your "You do this" statements, especially when the clear implication is that your moral standards are better ("clarity") than those of others ("excuses").
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Oct 10, 2006 11:42:34 GMT -5
Okay, folks, this conversation is starting to violate the "don't teach anybody" rule, on both sides, and so if you've already stated your opinion and defended it, please don't do so again. Let's table the conversation and discuss other things, OK?
Otherwise, you will face my wrath. It's a nice wrath, but it's still wrath.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 10, 2006 13:33:31 GMT -5
Okay, folks, this conversation is starting to violate the "don't teach anybody" rule, on both sides, and so if you've already stated your opinion and defended it, please don't do so again. Let's table the conversation and discuss other things, OK? Otherwise, you will face my wrath. It's a nice wrath, but it's still wrath. Ok. Hey, how about them Bears? ETA: I have been thinking about one scene that stuck with me. It was the 'round table' discussion between the Cylons. Very well acted all around, I thought. And Baltar, the lone human looking so trashed and so over his head in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Oct 10, 2006 16:37:04 GMT -5
Okay, folks, this conversation is starting to violate the "don't teach anybody" rule, on both sides, and so if you've already stated your opinion and defended it, please don't do so again. Let's table the conversation and discuss other things, OK? Otherwise, you will face my wrath. It's a nice wrath, but it's still wrath. Ok. Hey, how about them Bears? ETA: I have been thinking about one scene that stuck with me. It was the 'round table' discussion between the Cylons. Very well acted all around, I thought. And Baltar, the lone human looking so trashed and so over his head in that situation. I must admit, I'm wondering if there are more reasons he keeps being the only one in the midst of all these Cylons. I mean, more than just being Six's fun toy. Which, I suppose, is perhaps what they're getting at with the whole "is Baltar a cylon" question.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 10, 2006 16:57:02 GMT -5
Ok. Hey, how about them Bears? ETA: I have been thinking about one scene that stuck with me. It was the 'round table' discussion between the Cylons. Very well acted all around, I thought. And Baltar, the lone human looking so trashed and so over his head in that situation. I must admit, I'm wondering if there are more reasons he keeps being the only one in the midst of all these Cylons. I mean, more than just being Six's fun toy. Which, I suppose, is perhaps what they're getting at with the whole "is Baltar a cylon" question. God, if he is, then they're playing a really horrible game with him.
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Oct 10, 2006 18:56:17 GMT -5
I must admit, I'm wondering if there are more reasons he keeps being the only one in the midst of all these Cylons. I mean, more than just being Six's fun toy. Which, I suppose, is perhaps what they're getting at with the whole "is Baltar a cylon" question. God, if he is, then they're playing a really horrible game with him. What if he is and they don't even know?
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 10, 2006 19:22:01 GMT -5
God, if he is, then they're playing a really horrible game with him. What if he is and they don't even know? Now, THAT would be wicked cool. So, what if he does die? Is the game up, then? Resurrection is a sure sign of Cylonicity....
|
|