Sign Up | Log In
GENERAL DISCUSSIONS
I wanna do this one more time: Was Mal wrong when he shot that surrendering guy in Serenity?
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:05 PM
SECOND
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: Quote:Originally posted by second: He was just a military deserter. He was a stowaway. That's why he survived. He was not with the crew. He was in the back. He thought he could sneak away when the gunship landed on moon called Haven. Then He knew upon surrendering that he was takin' his chances. He should have stayed put & shut up, but he rolled the dice & he lost. Still not Mal's fault.
Quote:Originally posted by second: He was just a military deserter. He was a stowaway. That's why he survived. He was not with the crew. He was in the back. He thought he could sneak away when the gunship landed on moon called Haven.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:37 PM
CHRISISALL
Quote:Originally posted by second: So, Mal kills the conscientious objector to impress the hell out of Jayne and Mal is without fault? I want you on my jury when I'm charged with murder. I know just the kind of story to tell you for a not guilty verdict.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 4:23 PM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: I'm always amazed at the lengths people will go to save character and people they like from certain labels.Well, I'm amazed at how institutions control our thinking to such a degree. A Cop shoots a kid he believes has a gun, that's acceptable. A Soldier shoots a kid he believes has a weapon, acceptable. Mal shoots a confirmed dirtbag killer not really caring if he might have a weapon or not, and he's a murderer. But an institution finding said surrendering soldier guilty of treason against Parliament & multiple murders sentencing him to death is okay, because, y'know, a body of men with titles is so much more morally correct than a single principled one with no shiny badge or active military rank. Ugh, I got a piece of sarcasm stuck in my teeth....
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: I'm always amazed at the lengths people will go to save character and people they like from certain labels.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 4:38 PM
Quote:Originally posted by M52NICKERSON: Surprisingly I don't think it's okay for the state to sentence people to death.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 4:48 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: You're assuming that 1) "killing unarmed" is a specific determination of "murder" (it is not), 2) the Alliance pilot didn't have a pistol on him (unlikely), and 3) that Crow's efforts to kill Mal just prior to the trussing him up in front of an engine to get some concessions doesn't count as facing Mal while armed. You'd get better mileage out of focusing on the fact the Alliance pilot was surrendering. In both cases those people were not a threat at the time in which Mal killed them. That is murder. Can we understand why Mal killed them, yes. Does it change what it was, no. Okay, agreed. I've even said that it is still murder. But the unarmed thing and those poor helpless people Mal killed so immorally? Come on. No way. For the pilot that's like saying a guy in a broken down tank that mowed over a bunch of pedestrians first is unarmed and harmless. He's still in an Alliance designed war machine at the time for cryin' out loud. For Dobson that's like saying a guy who's trying to abduct a child for some seedy torture pr0n (government funded or not) and pointing a gun around when he's known to shoot on a hair-trigger is a cuddly teddy bear. And for Crow... The guy couldn't be harmless and unarmed unless you literally sawed his arms off.
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: You're assuming that 1) "killing unarmed" is a specific determination of "murder" (it is not), 2) the Alliance pilot didn't have a pistol on him (unlikely), and 3) that Crow's efforts to kill Mal just prior to the trussing him up in front of an engine to get some concessions doesn't count as facing Mal while armed. You'd get better mileage out of focusing on the fact the Alliance pilot was surrendering. In both cases those people were not a threat at the time in which Mal killed them. That is murder. Can we understand why Mal killed them, yes. Does it change what it was, no.
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: You're assuming that 1) "killing unarmed" is a specific determination of "murder" (it is not), 2) the Alliance pilot didn't have a pistol on him (unlikely), and 3) that Crow's efforts to kill Mal just prior to the trussing him up in front of an engine to get some concessions doesn't count as facing Mal while armed. You'd get better mileage out of focusing on the fact the Alliance pilot was surrendering.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 4:50 PM
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: Okay, common ground; I don't either. But I understand summary executions in times of war. In extreme circumstances, humanity must give way to expediency in order to survive. Bottom line, first time I saw Mal shoot that guy I was truly shocked how cold he'd become. But I did not for one second care that the surrendering Alliance scum had been killed.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 4:55 PM
BYTEMITE
Quote:Originally posted by M52NICKERSON: Regardless of what the pilot and Crow did or could do at the time Mal kills them they are not a threat to him. I understand why Mal killed them, but that does not make that a moral thing to do.
Quote:Keep in mind that when I was talking about Dobson I'm talking about the fact that Mal tells Simon that at some point Dobson is going to have to be delt with. Mal understand that he can't let Dobson live, because it will mean the crew being wanted. In the end Dobson puts himself in a position in which Mal was more then justified in killing him.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:00 PM
Quote:He is none of those. He was just a military deserter. He was a stowaway. That's why he survived. He was not with the crew. He was in the back. He thought he could sneak away when the gunship landed on moon called Haven.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:09 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Where are you even getting this?
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:10 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Only if it's assumed killing is never moral, or that killing is only ever moral or justified when the other person is armed, which I disagree with.
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Actually, Mal's question there is pushing Simon in that scene to try to figure out Simon's character. He himself is not sure what to do about the Fed, as is shown with a conversation where Zoe tells Jayne that outright killing the Fed would be the dumbest thing they could do, and Mal's attitude kind of suggests he agrees. That's why they end up tying Dobson up and locking him in a room instead of shooting him right away. It's not until Dobson breaks out and goes monkey shit again threatening everyone with a gun that Mal finally shoots him.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48 PM
Quote:If they are a danger to you or someone else at that moment, yes I think killing can be seen as moral. A person tied up or putting their hands up in surrender, not so much.
Quote:We will disagree.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:56 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Then agreeing to disagree.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 6:56 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: I think you're underestimating what kind a danger a person can be in both those circumstances. Based on what you said previously, would it be moral for a state to execute someone if they armed them first? I think we won't agree because it seems like an arbitrary line that's being drawn here.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 6:59 PM
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: m52 is colouring outside the lines on this one IMO. We all do it to a degree or another, but m52 is assigning extra meanings to where there aren't that many, and leaving out others that matter. He's trying to confound us bungers.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 7:06 PM
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 7:22 PM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Really? What danger was Crow when he was tied up?
Quote:What danger was the pilot?
Quote:I guess if the person that was going to be executed decided to pick up the gun and tried to use it would be, but I don't see that happening.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 7:24 PM
Quote:The punishment for murder varies in different jurisdictions.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014 7:27 PM
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 7:58 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: He was still making threats. That's like the definition of threatening, especially because it's implied he's a guy who can follow through on those threats and already tried to kill them.
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Inherently untrustworthy because of what he'd done.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 9:56 AM
Quote:Originally posted by M52NICKERSON: So he is making threats, he could not do anything at that point in time.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 10:52 AM
Quote:So he is making threats, he could not do anything at that point in time.
Quote:So it is okay to kill untrustworthy folk?
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 1:23 PM
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: Quote:Originally posted by M52NICKERSON: So he is making threats, he could not do anything at that point in time. If you're bitten by a rabid animal, why get shots right away? The virus can't immediately do any damage...
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 1:25 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: Threats = threatening by definition, + not harmless whatsoever to begin with...? So they shouldn't take his threats seriously or what? Still underestimating what he could do at the time.
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: When they just killed a whole village of non-hostiles? I'm going to go with "yes" here.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 2:08 PM
Quote:Originally posted by M52NICKERSON: Plus there is a mark differnce between kill another human and a rabid animal.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 3:48 PM
Quote:Originally posted by M52NICKERSON: What could have Crow done while tied up?
Quote:...and it would still be called murder.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 4:07 PM
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: [ Seriously m52, you totally missed my point. I was saying why take MEDICINE right away for an infection that won't kill you for days or weeks. Y'know, drawing a parallel twixt Crow and a virus... see? Both non-lethal AT THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT, but in need of being dealt with ASAP to avoid unavoidable future unpleasantness... get it?
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: I already said it would be murder. The disagreement here is whether it's wrong.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 4:11 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: As I recall he stood up by then and was doing that dumb macho chest to chest thing, so... Headbutt, break nose, downward elbow, stomp temple. If you have a sense of humour, you could toss a groin shot in there too, though that might actually give recovery time. Alternate scenario - guy is ripped and might be able to just snap the bonds on him since I'm pretty sure they just used rope. That's when it gets fun.
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: You talking in circles now? I already said it would be murder. The disagreement here is whether it's wrong. Submit another argument.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 4:15 PM
Quote:Ain't crime wrong?
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 4:38 PM
Quote:Originally posted by BYTEMITE: As such, breaking a law, a crime, is not always wrong.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 6:02 PM
Quote:...all that, with Zoe standing behind Mal, but he just lets Mal kick him into the engine.
Quote:Murder is wrong, you may not think that in all cases, but I do.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 6:47 PM
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 7:09 PM
JEWELSTAITEFAN
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: Quote:Originally posted by M52NICKERSON: Plus there is a mark differnce between kill another human and a rabid animal. I'm gonna have to ask Mark about that directly. Hey Mark, what do YOU think? Mark: "There is no difference between a rabid animal and a homicidal maniac. Both are best set free of this reality to pursue a new existence elsewhere." But Mark, don't humans differ in the we have souls, and are therefore worth more consideration simply because only God should have a say when a man dies? Mark: "Oh please. You're makin' me all allergic & sneezy with that fuzzy wuzzy talk." Well there ya have it! There IS NO Mark difference.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014 10:57 PM
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: chris has achieved a worthwhile post in this retreaded topic.
Thursday, June 5, 2014 7:29 PM
Quote:Originally posted by chrisisall: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: chris has achieved a worthwhile post in this retreaded topic.Thank you, thank you so much! You like me, you REALLY like me!
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL