Infanticide: the final word

[Darth Marley]

Hehe.

Easy enough to take.

One question for you,and apologies if I asked elsewhere,it is hard to keep track of the numerous anti-mini posters;

Did you watch the show that aired,or no,just going by scripts,and 2nd hand reports?

[Corwwyn]

Suffice to say I have not seen it in a manner that would be approved by the audiovisual equivalent of the RIAA.

[Darth Marley]

Bootlegged copies is still watching it,and that is what I am trying to discover.

I understand the position of those that say they will never watch it.I have heard some of the reasons they do not wish to watch it.Olmos even said to some,"don't watch it."

I am trying to gauge where the various posters fit on the opinion map.

I judge a difference between those that have watched it (regardless of prior bias) and dislike it,and those who for other reasons refuse to watch it at all.

[SpyOne]

Originally posted by dvo47p (deleted)
[B]

Sorry, folks. I see that others have already addressed how this guy just kept repeating himself without contributing to the conversation.

[callsignfalcon]

I thought about writing a response... but then realised it'd just be redundant of what I said in the good mini series section in the thread where this is being discussed... scroll down in this if you want to read it.

http://www.colonialfleets.com/forums...5&pagenumber=2

[dvo47p]

"This guy" is curious, who deleted the quote?

Originally posted by SpyOne
Sorry, folks. I see that others have already addressed how this guy just kept repeating himself without contributing to the conversation.

I PRONOUNCE THIS THREAD AS REDUNDANT

MINI FANS CAN ENJOY THOSE BOOTLEGGED VHS, VCD & DVD’S

TOS FANS MAY WELL LOOK TO MGM’S NEW “BATTLESTAR” MOVIE!

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/44...html?fromint=1

December 23, 2003 - The success of Sci-Fi Channel's recent Battlestar Galactica re-imagining / re-make must have taken a number of people by surprise. Despite critical and fan lambasting, the mini drew impressive numbers for the cable channel, chalking up some of the best ratings in the network's history, so it seemed inevitable that a series order would be announced soon.

Earlier this week a number of web sites announced that just such an order had been inked. Not so, according to a spokesperson for the Sci-Fi Channel. While it still seems likely that there will be some action on the Galactica front, no orders for either a series or a sequel to the mini-series have come from Sci-Fi Channel. No decisions or orders for new episodes will happen until after the first of the year, so cool your jets, little Colonial Warriors.

[SpyOne]

Originally posted by dvo47p
[B]"This guy" is curious, who deleted the quote?

I did. Sorry I wasn't clear about that.

I was replying to where you seemed to be replying to me but were in fact making a 3rd identical post with a quote from me above it.
I wrote a post that pointed out how your post didn't bring any new evidence to support your comments. Then I quoted the chat you linked to, and showed how you mis-characterized the quotation by mis-describing the question it was in response to.
And then I pointed out that in that chat they refer to the scene as "babykilling", with no reference at all to "crushing its skull".

But then I saw that several other people had beat me to it. While I prefer my own choice of phrase to theirs, they adequately addressed each point I had addressed, making my point redundant.
So, I deleted all the redundant parts, which left just the note that I was replying to you and vague snarky comments.

If you care to actually discuss this stuff, I'll gladly do so with you. If you instead choose to be diruptive and childish, I'll be ignoring you.

[SpyOne]

Originally posted by peter noble
Cylons don't seem to have any sort of alien ideoligy as shown in the mini.

Well, they seem to think that killing all the humans is an ok idea. I certainly hope you find that a little alien.

...they also lust, know fear and love it seems.

I didn't see them showing lust or love. 6 only engaged in sex when it would further her purpose -- get her closer to Baltar. And while she showed a certain attachment to him, I'd call it curiosity mostly.
Also, there is the highly relevant question of whether Baltar has a chip in his head or is just hallucinating. In the latter case, nothing the 6 in his head says is really being said by a Cylon.

killing something that is incapable of doing you harm is illogical.

Unless you have some other motive, like curiosity about the strength of it's neck.

[SpyOne]

I agree with Kester Pelagius that the scene in question was used mainly for the shock value.

Originally posted by Kester Pelagius

Consider: We see Six. Six is established to have been on planet for an unspecified amount of time, but long enough ..... at least several months.)

To show such a character suddenly baffeled by a baby is, in a word, ridiculous.

Associating mainly with adults myself, I had no problem embracing the idea that 6 had never actually seen a baby before, or at least never been close enough to touch one.

By the moment in time we see Six she should have not only amassed a library of first hand obervational data, but one would assume she'd also long since have managed to download all relevant data about humanity at present up to that date as her computer access could gain her.

Reading all the technical data on a thing is still not the same as actually holding it. If your life has not already proven this to you, I'd suggest reading a Masters & Johnson report on human sexuality. Contrast that with performing an actual sexual act.
This is often called the difference between "theoretical" and "practical" knowledge.

I agree the scene would have gone better at the beginning. The scene at Armistace Station makes no sense and the only purpose it serves is to tell the audience that Cylons can look human (and specificly like 6).

That said, I think it is also important that this not be her arrival on Caprica. An incindent like that makes her life more difficult, as the mother can describe her to the authorities (and is definitely going to connect the stranger and the dead baby). 6 can only take a risk like that if her mission is almost over.

Further, as creations of humanity, one would assume the cylons would already have amassed more than a basic database of flaws, faults, and biological data. To not know the fragile nature of humans, infants or otherwise, is beyod the pale.

Again, to have read about something is not the same as having experienced it. How many movies have included a line like "I always wondered what it felt like to kill a man."? 6 seemed to be curious about the baby. She found out what it felt like to hold it, then what it felt like to kill it. Both are things that will not be adequately described in any human database, but now she can share that knowledge with other Cylons.

So, while I don't support the idea of killing babies (or much of anyone, really), I can see why the Cylons might find it interesting.
As for the morality issue, I'll just say that if you've already made up your mind to kill everyone in the city, the exact manner of their death pales in importance by comparison.

[peter noble]

Originally posted by SpyOne
Well, they seem to think that killing all the humans is an ok idea. I certainly hope you find that a little alien.

Actually I don't, surely you haven't forgotten Hitler's "Final Solution"?

Unless you have some other motive, like curiosity about the strength of it's neck.

This is so lame, I won't even dignify it with a counter-argument.

Peter

[Trevor Angelus]

This is one of the things that is wrong with this country. We lost the nerve to establish things as good and evil. Right and wrong. We want to bend over backwards to please the bullies and charliatans of this nation so we desensitize our self to these notions.

"There is no good or evil, just a differance in point of view" FELGERCARB.

There IS good and evil in this world, right and wrong. To say anything else is to justify his or her wrong doing. Sure there are different points of view and opinions, but when you know that something is definatly wrong, such as rape and turn around and say "Well we can't let our moral prejudice say what he did was wrong, he was operating within his own moral scope" we just open another pandora's box that we can't close.

Don't let these politics and mumbo jumbo get in the way and tell you that there are no such things as morals. Yes It is one statement, but is a grain of sand in the desert and if we let things like this go, it turns into a sandstorm.

Like murder in music. Explicit sex in music and movies. I believe in freedom of speech, but DAMN! There is a limit! Sure it was ridiculous to blame Ozzy for the death of a kid, but when you basicly make political statements of hate and prejudice, of muder death and mayhem, you give up that right.

"If we silence one persons right of speech, we silence all others" FELGERCARB! There are thousands of rednecks just aching to get a lynch mob song on the air, yet they are denyed! Don't let this GARBAGE GET ANY WORSE.

There is just so much crap we can take.

[dvo47p]

A voice of sanity on a thread that has 'some' rational people debating killing a baby!

Originally posted by peter noble This is so lame, I won't even dignify it with a counter-argument. Peter

I shall go this, the noble, peter route, terminus.

[SpyOne]

Originally posted by Trevor Angelus
Like murder in music. Explicit sex in music and movies. I believe in freedom of speech, but DAMN! There is a limit! Sure it was ridiculous to blame Ozzy for the death of a kid, but when you basicly make political statements of hate and prejudice, of muder death and mayhem, you give up that right.

"If we silence one persons right of speech, we silence all others" FELGERCARB! There are thousands of rednecks just aching to get a lynch mob song on the air, yet they are denyed! Don't let this GARBAGE GET ANY WORSE.

There is just so much crap we can take.

But who, exactly, would you put in charge of what can and cannot be said in public? I'm fairly sure I don't want it to be you, and trust me that you don't want it to be me.

And as for the "...when you basicly make political statements of hate and prejudice, of muder death and mayhem, you give up that right." bit, I stand with the Supreme Court on that one. You can say whatever you want, but you are also responsable for the results of what you say. If you yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire, you must accept responsability for the injuries and deaths that follow. Doesn't change the fact that you had the right to say it.

I have the right to say vile and untrue things about you. You have the right to sue me for damages if I do. Lovely circle.

That all said, I want to clarify my position to this degree:
I didn't realize what I joined this discussion how stupid it had become before this thread began. I assumed the discussion was over whether the scene should have been included, and whether killing a baby was "un-Cylon". That, I believe, has room for debate. As does whether the killing of the baby can be justified from a Cylon point of view.
This is, I feel, wholly seperate from any discussion of whether babykilling is a good thing.

[SpyOne]

An act can be evil or heroic depending on the circumstances.

Being in a war for your very survival can make a lot of things seem justified.
At the risk of punching a button, I'll give an example drawn from modern history.
Right after Spetember 11, lots of folks were using hyperbole to describe the act of crashing an airplane into a target to cause it's destruction. They used worlds like "cowardly", and decried that anyone who took issue with them was an emeny sympathizer.
In the John Wayne movie The Flying Tigers, one of the heroic American pilots does just that. Rather than escape with his life, he crashes an airplane full of explosives into a train carrying supplies to the Japanese army. He does so because war has broken out between the US and Japan, and he realizes that the supplies on that train will be used to help kill Americans.
Being at war makes his suicide attack with an airplane a heroic act, not a cowardly one.
Similarly, we (the US) have, in times of war, knowingly targeted "civilian" targets that supported the enemy war effort, such as factories. In an all-out war, anyone who is supporting the enemy economy is a legitimate target.
So, the point where I disagree with Al-Queda is not thier methods, but the question of whether we were at war before their attack. If we were truly at war, and we were trying to stamp out their way of life, then our economic centers become valid targets and suicide attacks become heroic. But we weren't at war with them, nor were we trying to stamp out their way of life. At best, we were protecting ourselves form them and providing aid to their enemies.
Misguided hardly seems stong enough to characterize their actions, but is probably most accurate. Basicly, they were wrong.

So, the Cylons could do lots of awful stuff without seeing themselves as the villians of the piece. Sadly, the Cylons' motives are not revealed to the viewer.
As for killing the baby, it seems basicly irrelevant. What I mean is, 6 had already decided to kill everyone in that city, and probably hundreds of other cities. She had created the means to make that possable. She was already a mass murderer, and seemed ok with that. After all that, the exact means of death becomes of little importance. The baby was going to be dead before tomorrow, and 6 would have killed it. Is using your own hands any more or less morally acceptable than using nuclear bombs?

How about this? 6 had realized that an act is often more palatable when performed indirectly. That is, a human conscience is less bothered by dropping bombs (or ordering bombs to be dropped) than by sticking a kinfe in someone. Since Cylons seem to be sentient in a way similer to humans (and were, in fact, designed by humans), it seems a logical question to wonder if they have the same mental loophole. So, 6 is curious about whether she is really ready to have the death of everyone in the city on her hands, and more specificly whether she is capable of taking a life directly. A question killing the baby helps answer.

[callsignfalcon]

The way you grow up(or brought up if you prefer) decides your point of view on morals. Societys, religons, family and etc help you to decide your morals. On the issue of baby killing... some people are pro abortion... other avidly against. Its what your taught that defines you and your morals... sure your morals can change as you learn more , but in the case of 6 not only do I think that she was curious about the baby(as she said 'how can its neck support such weight) in particular its neck, but I think she had no thoughts as to the fact that killing an innocent babie was wrong... after all she and her race commited Xenocide did they not?

((more on this topic can be foud in my other post... i really don't want to be redundant, scroll up and select onto the other forum then scroll down to see please))

[Kester Pelagius]

Originally posted by SpyOne
Associating mainly with adults myself, I had no problem embracing the idea that 6 had never actually seen a baby before, or at least never been close enough to touch one.

Problem is if she is Human enough to have sex, yet has a consciousness that can be transferred to a new body at will (or at least upon her current body's demise), I find it hard to believe that the most basic of datum would not be part of her consciouness.

Rather, I think what the scene was attempting to set up was that that Six was not the Six with Baltar. We do see later on that there are other Six's, and I think that might be what that scene might have originally been attempting to set up.

EDIT: That this was a "new" Six. Possibly just born/created. As a Six fresh off the assembly line, as it were, one might assume she'd have some curiosity of the sort exhibited. Maybe.

Originally posted by SpyOne
Reading all the technical data on a thing is still not the same as actually holding it. If your life has not already proven this to you, I'd suggest reading a Masters & Johnson report on human sexuality. Contrast that with performing an actual sexual act.

This is often called the difference between "theoretical" and "practical" knowledge.

Alas that is assuming a Human mentality. Remember we are supposidly dealing with a artificial cybernetic intelligence. One would assume that memories could be easily downloaded, not just memory files.

Originally posted by SpyOne
I agree the scene would have gone better at the beginning. The scene at Armistace Station makes no sense and the only purpose it serves is to tell the audience that Cylons can look human (and specificly like 6).

Too right. Made no sense.

Worse, it only serves to show that the Colonial Military forces are totally inept. I mean a space station, set up to communiate with a enemy, who doesn't want to communicate, and only one officer? No monitoring? No communications personell? No security?

I fear whoever set that scene up hated the military, for it is a scene designed soley as a barb against the military and comes off as being a last minute tack on.

Originally posted by SpyOne
As for the morality issue, I'll just say that if you've already made up your mind to kill everyone in the city, the exact manner of their death pales in importance by comparison.

Which brings up a question: Why care?

Actually here's some food for thought: Either the Cylons are organic or they are not. If they are organic that means they had to be grown, even if we assume some form of cloning methodology was employed, that still means they would have a period of growth. Whether that period of growth is excellerated or not is irrelevant because, if they are organic, it immediately negates any sense of curiosity about the fragility of an organic lifeform.

Alas if they are not organic then we have a problem. It was stated the only way to tell a Cylon like Six apart from normal Humans was to cremate them and examine the cremains.

There is something wrong here.


EDIT: Though, if memory serves, wasn't it also hinted at that there might be a way to examine DNA to tell. . Or am I totally misremembering?

[DCRabbit]

It's all just bad writing by someone who professes it to be so grounded in 'reality'.

Yeah.. about as grounded in reality as those old cheap 80s car racing movies where the hero's car wins the race cos he downshifted 50 times and that new 'oxygen injector pipe' his nerd mechanic friend installed turned on when the button is pushed and gives him 500 more horsepower.

DC

[Trevor Angelus]

So everyone is okay with the fact that they got away with killing a baby on tv?


It makes my skin crawl that most everyone seems perfectly ok with it! Is Apathy REALLY that bad in this country?

I understand that there are grey areas in life that are often confusing, but it seems to be this country's purpose to stretch that area as far as possible!

I mean, for example, we have all seen that car in the road with the overloaded trunk. Instead of giving these people tickets to send a message "clean out your car, or don't carry so much", car makers build larger trunks in cars. Eventually these trunks become over loaded and the process begins anew.

It doesn't stop. Once something horrible becomes the norm, people try to stretch the bounds and out do the norm. The line between good and evil dissapears. It won't stop unless we as americans say "WHOA! WAIT JUST A MINUTE!"

But we won't. Because apathy has become our god in this nation.

[Darth Marley]

Good posts Trevor,

I have reached a point in my life that I would rather spend the remainder of my days alone and friendless than trifle in the company of those that greet evil with a smile.

Evil does not stop at rape,murder and theft.There are many little treacheries that are tolerated.

What I don't get is the objection to the fictional portrayal of an evil act by an evil agent.I don't get the outrage,and I don't buy into the "slippery slope" theory that portrayal of these acts dooms our culture to ever increasing acceptance of evil in our real lives.

Obviously,some viewers have a different threshold of offense at both the baby scene,and the sex scenes.It is only a movie.

[Kester Pelagius]

Originally posted by Trevor Angelus
So everyone is okay with the fact that they got away with killing a baby on tv?

You are aware that this is A) a fictional television reality, and; B) that at no time was the baby ever shown to actually be harmed, yes?

That said, if you re-read my posts, at least, you will see that I neither say it is a good or bad scene from a moral standpoint. Just that the scene is grossly irrelevent because it was obviously NOT thought through and, IMHO, exists solely to do just what it is doing here:

Elicit a knee-jerk shock response.

Weighing the scene based upon moral judgement calls of 'good' or 'bad' = Irrelevent because the scene is Irrelevent and totally amoral.

Bwhuh?

Let me explain: IMO the scene demonstrates that someone was not thinking things through by allowing it to survive the editing process. However, by not actually showing anything the scene allows viewers to fill in the gaps with their own imaginations. . . Which, again, only proves the scene is amoral since it leaves the viewer to fill in the blanks. It's also a very old movie making trick. Remember the original Psycho? The shower scene? Same deal. You really saw nothing, and yet you did. . . or did you?

That is why the scene is there. Someone thought they were being very clever with it, alas they did not think through the CONTENT being portrayed in relation to the story, which is more than just a bit vulgar and not at all necessary.

Either Six is a artificial lifeform or she isn't. Either way the level of naivette portrayed in that scene about basic organic lifeforms runs contradictory to everything about her character that has been portrayed in the rest of the series. That the scene was deliberately designed to intimate she might-have-murdered a helpless infant (without ever explicitly stating this as fact) is only par for the course in relation to the rest of the drek heaped upon us.

Edit: It's all about ambiguity. Problem is you can't have too much ambiguity about what is going on, especially with characters, or else you get the sort of problems that arise from watching the mini-series. Intentional loose ends, which can be wrapped up in later series development, are one thing. But ambiguity on this level smacks of rushed production. IMO YMMV

[The 14th Colony]

I had posted this in a seperate thread, but it is appropriate for this one:

I would be the last one could justifyably call old fashioned, prude, touchy, squemish, ect., but IMO there are certain places you don't go to in entertainment media. Killing babies for shock value is one of those places. In a film like Shindler's List, although I don't remember a specific scene of a baby being visibly killed, such a thing would be understandable and appropriate. But not in any other type of film or TV show. That scene, even though I knew it was coming from having read that part of the script last year, revolted and angered me.
The original BSG was a family oriented, kid friendly show. This time around, if the handjob in the first 2 minutes of the mini didn't do it, that baby killing scene would surely have prompted many a parent to change the channel for the sake of their viewing children.

[Trevor Angelus]

Umm, I don't care what was going on with the story, the politics behind the camera, or if it was shock value. THEY KILLED A BABY! They showed someone reaching into a crib and snapping its neck. It doesn't matter how graphic it was, you don't show that on television.

Yes this was a work of fiction, no matter how much RDM and DE's efforts into makeing it more real and in documentary style. They were not filming some attrocity that actually happened, this was fiction and thought it would make the story good by showing such horror.

And most people instead of getting upset and letting these people know how horrible it was, have been justifying what they did.

There IS NO justification to what they did. It was wrong and they know it. They were only stretching the envelope for what would be acceptable in the future.

[malachi42]

"Umm, I don't care what was going on with the story, the politics behind the camera, or if it was shock value. THEY KILLED A BABY! They showed someone reaching into a crib and snapping its neck. It doesn't matter how graphic it was, you don't show that on television."


You do realize that they didn't kill a REAL baby? Do you watch any dramas currently on television? I have seen far worse done to children on many nightime dramas.


"Yes this was a work of fiction, no matter how much RDM and DE's efforts into makeing it more real and in documentary style. They were not filming some attrocity that actually happened, this was fiction and thought it would make the story good by showing such horror."

So you must object to the fictional portrayal in BSG of the genocide of virtually an entire race of people, because it is fictional?


And most people instead of getting upset and letting these people know how horrible it was, have been justifying what they did.

There IS NO justification to what they did. It was wrong and they know it. They were only stretching the envelope for what would be acceptable in the future.

You seem to miss the point of fiction. It explores all aspects of the human story. Sometimes bad things happen. People are murdered, raped, brutalized. There are acts of unjustified war, genocide, racisim, wrongful imprisonment AND ABOUT A BILLION OTHER UNPLEASANT SUBJECTS. SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME WRITERS HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT THESE THINGS. WITH THE ADVENT OF FILM AND TELEVISION. THEY CONTINUED TO WRITe about them. It's not all teletubbies. Because a writers tells a story that may be about rape or murder it does not mean that he condones those acts. Where do you get such an idea?

[malachi42]

Sorry about the upper case.

[Trevor Angelus]

Just because Peter did it, doesn't mean Paul had to. Just because there is precedent doesn't mean we have to blindly follow along, or more to the point, lower ourselves to those standards.

Yes the basic story of Galactica is genocide. It was horrible, but we did not have to watch as each individual was killed. We caught a glimpse of what happened. The fact that it happened alone was enough. And I understand that they had to show some explosions and what not, although I am still a bit upset that they showed the death of a dog in the original.

But my point is the deaths were not in your face. There was no moment, other than the dog, where something that horrible happened. Did they HAVE to show the fembot reaching into the crib? No. That was not needed to tell the story at all. Yes it was genocide and everyone died anyway, but this was a singled out moment chosen by Moore to be filmed for dramatic effect. The death of a child should not be that in your face for so petty a reason.

I do realize that there are programs on televison that do show these kind of attrocities. Law And Order is 3 of them(if you catch me). However 9 times out of ten they are based on REAL events, and all the time the story is centered around the crime and the punishment of the criminal. It has never been used solely for shock value as it was on the Mini. Yes the horrible thing happened but the police are going to catch those responsible and do their best to right the wrong.

Also not once did it happen, but twice. They focused on a little girl right before the ship she was on was destroyed. Yet again using the death of a child for dramatic effect.

Now was it real. NO. But the common occurance of using scenes like this solely for dramatic effect desesitises us to the absolute horror of what happened. Just think of what someone else is going to do in the comming years to top it.

And if that doesn't bother you, I think you need to reevaluate your morals.

[Yminale]

Originally posted by Trevor Angelus
Yes the basic story of Galactica is genocide. It was horrible, but we did not have to watch as each individual was killed. We caught a glimpse of what happened. The fact that it happened alone was enough. And I understand that they had to show some explosions and what not, although I am still a bit upset that they showed the death of a dog in the original.

Uhm in the original BG. They showed people screaming, getting blown up and bodies were being flung around. It's pretty disturbing to watch.

But my point is the deaths were not in your face. There was no moment, other than the dog, where something that horrible happened. Did they HAVE to show the fembot reaching into the crib? No. That was not needed to tell the story at all. Yes it was genocide and everyone died anyway, but this was a singled out moment chosen by Moore to be filmed for dramatic effect. The death of a child should not be that in your face for so petty a reason.

Petty reasons?? I disagree. The scene was designed to show the complexity of six in particular and the Cylons in general. The whole point that the new Cylons are not mindless killing machines, that their reason for the attack are multilayered and that they have a fasination with us seem to escape most people. If you think villians should be one dimensional cartoons, I guess you would have a problem with it.

Now was it real. NO. But the common occurance of using scenes like this solely for dramatic effect desesitises us to the absolute horror of what happened. Just think of what someone else is going to do in the comming years to top it.

Good Grief watching a child die on TV doesn't desensitize me when it happens in real life. The problem here is that people focus too much on the act don't even bother thinking about the context it's shown. I mean are you seriousely stating that their are some ideas artists shouldn't explore no matter how well it's done. That's called censorship.

And if that doesn't bother you, I think you need to reevaluate your morals.

What bothers me is when people state that if that I like the mini then I must be immoral. I personally consider that offensive. Many people are both horrified by the scene yet understand their purpose in the narrative. I also don't understand why people are judging the new BSG by the standards of the old one. I think Ron Moore should be given some credit for trying to make the show more mature.

[malachi42]

"But my point is the deaths were not in your face. There was no moment, other than the dog, where something that horrible happened. Did they HAVE to show the fembot reaching into the crib? No. That was not needed to tell the story at all. Yes it was genocide and everyone died anyway, but this was a singled out moment chosen by Moore to be filmed for dramatic effect. The death of a child should not be that in your face for so petty a reason."

I wouldn't call dramatic effect a "petty reason". That is the entire point of dramatic storytelling. I take it you felt the same way about 'Apocolypse Now'. 'The Killing Fields', 'Platoon' and 'Lord of the rings'. Visual media that sometimes uses horrific images (not just sounds) to convey horror.
In your face? We never saw the act of killing. It was all implied. I wasn't even sure of what 6 did, until the mother started screaming. Is it horrific? Of course it is. That is what dramtic fiction is supposed to do. Invoke feelings, sometimes good, happy feelings and sometimes bad and sad feelings.



"I do realize that there are programs on televison that do show these kind of attrocities. Law And Order is 3 of them(if you catch me). However 9 times out of ten they are based on REAL events, and all the time the story is centered around the crime and the punishment of the criminal. It has never been used solely for shock value as it was on the Mini. Yes the horrible thing happened but the police are going to catch those responsible and do their best to right the wrong."


As I asked you earlier, you object then to a show of any kind about genocide that is based on fictional events? I truly don't get thios point. It's ok to show the horrors of the Nazi regime, but not about a fictional regime? What do you read and watch?
And the bad guys do not always get caught on todays television, that kind of TV went out with TJ Hooker. I think the very idea of television somehow being involved in setting the moral code for us as one of it's goals is extremely dangerous.




"Also not once did it happen, but twice. They focused on a little girl right before the ship she was on was destroyed. Yet again using the death of a child for dramatic effect.

Now was it real. NO. But the common occurance of using scenes like this solely for dramatic effect desesitises us to the absolute horror of what happened. Just think of what someone else is going to do in the comming years to top it."

Or maybe it does not desensitize. It certainly hasn't had that effect on you or an awful lot of other posters. Perhaps it is the opposite effect. It does indeed horrify us, and rather than sitting like a couch potato in front of out tv once again,. we are angered and upset by the ideas presented. And perhaps the next time a political leader somewhere in the world begins to eliminate his people, we will think about the children who are going to die in horrific ways, and we will act swiftly. Perhaps when we hear about the children dying and losing limbs making basketballs in horrific conditions in India or Malaysia, we will move heaven and earth to stop it.





And if that doesn't bother you, I think you need to reevaluate your morals.

This is the kind of thinking that I find quite dangerous. If I disagree with you, then my morals are in question? If I have a different political view than someone, perhaps that makes me un American? Your entire train of thought smacks of censorship, quelling voices that don't vocalize your personal moral code. I find that offensive, but I defend to the end your right to say it, and would never want your view to be censored because it was differnt than mine.
BTW, have you ever read The Crucible?

__________________

[Darth Marley]

I am confident my morals are in good shape.

There is a great difference in morals and conduct and artistic expression.Those that hate the scene,hey,I am not going to claim you lack artistic appreciation,we have different standards and points of view.

Claiming that those that disagree are either tastless or amoral serves little constructive pupose.

Say you didn't like it.Say you will not let your children watch.
Say you didn't watch the scene because you hate the idea of the RDM production,but are going to complain anyway.Fine by me.

Say I need to check my morals,and I say you have gone too far.

[BST]

Ok, folks.

Please lighten up on the "generalizations" of the membership. Debating the issue is fine but, let the debate stay with the issue. Let the disagreement be with the issue, not with the person sharing their thoughts.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation,

BST

[Trevor Angelus]

I AM NOT saying that if you liked the mini that you are immoral. However if you have to go and bend over backwards to defend the actions of the writers, you need to stop and look at what it exactly is that you are protecting IN THE LONG RUN!

Granted I didn't care about the mini, but I didn't even WATCH IT! I would be arguing this if were Babylon 5 or Stargate or Tracker.

As to what I watch I like Smallville, Angel, Law and Order, Frasier, Scrubs, Alias, The Practice, Friends, and ER.

If you want a complex villian with layers, you can do it with out what they did. Now I admit they did have infantcide on Angel. I was upset about that, however the producers did not defend their actions in fact Angelus was an evil bastard until he gained a soul and spent every wakeing moment makeing up for his past. Also the act was never shown only discussed.

You want an alternative on what could have been more dramatic and had even more shock value without doing something like that? How about trading infants, leaving a cylon in the crib and taking the human child back to cylon to teach it Cylon values and ultimatly to hate its own race. And have the mother realize all to late what her child really is, but since he had a normal human up bringing, will he be good or will he be a slave to his Cylon instincts? There is a million things you could do with that scenario.

Now my big problem fictional atrocities over fact is this.

In movies like Platoon they are showing you THIS is what happens in war. THIS is what our sons and daughters will be called upon to do, and what could possibly happen to them.

In fiction, it is the writer stretching the envelope just to see what can get aired. To see just how far he can go before someone tells him "Hey, whoa there, that's a little too much."

We have to have boundaries, we have to know where to stop. No one should have to tell us when, but we should have the presence of mind to know ourselves.

As for the Mini, for all I know if I watched it I could have LOVED it to death, with a few exceptions. My issue is NOT with the fans of the mini but with the producers and the writer. Because death, any kind is used as a quick way for dramatic effect. And because it is so common place, that death happens all the time in all media, they have to get creative with it.

Think about it. Death on television doesn't bother us. It really doesn't. Because it happens all the time so we are used to it.

I just don't want us to get "used to" infantcide.

That is all I'm really trying to say. I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

Please forgive me.