Infanticide: the final word

peter noble · December 24th, 2003, 01:51 AM

I've read a lot about the baby-killing scene, and to those who are trying to justify it I'd say this:

Yes, BSG 2003 is a work of fiction, and no babies were actually harmed during the making of this picture!

But consider this, RDM mentioned that he was "inspired" by the events of 9/11, if this is indeed the case, to follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, then the Cylons represent al-quaida.

Do you want to justify the killing of the baby now?

And I haven't even mentioned the act of genocide yet!

Peter

December 24th, 2003, 02:25 AM

Your "logical conclusion" is based on fatuous reasoning. You are assuming that, since RDM drew inspiration from the events and emotions of 9/11 that this *must* apply to the scene in question. That does not neccessarily follow. I suggest that it is far more likely that the scenes involving the survivors, or the manner in which the attack is protrayed and reacted to is where said inspiration comes in. Not in the baby scene.

And just to reiterate my previous post on the subject:

In regard to Mr.Eick's answer to the baby killing question, I would suggest that there's an issue of semmantics to be considered. No where does he defend the morality of killing babies. The fact is, evil is a product of intent, not action. Evil is a human construct that we apply to things, often to things outside ourselves that can not be labelled as such. If an animal finds an unprotected litre and proceeds to kill the babies, that is not an act of evil.

The question to be asked is, what was the intent behind 6's action. Cylon's are not human, and as such, applying our morality to them is much like applying it to an animal. The difference being that the Cylons are aware of our conceptions of what encompasses good and evil, they are not, however, required to come to those same conlsuions themselves.

So, did 6 kill the baby as an act of evil, or was it something else? Was it curiousity about the strength of the childs neck? Was it a mercy killing to spare the child the pain of nuclear incineration? There's much to be made of the pained expression on 6's face after having done the deed. Why is it there and what is she thinking?

What it comes down to is Eick is not defending killing babies, nor arguing that killing babies is not wrong. He is saying that it was not neccessarily an evil act on the part of the Cylon. When we put a dog down, that's not evil, and the mentality behind this for 6 could be much the same.

peter noble · December 24th, 2003, 02:36 AM

Cylons don't seem to have any sort of alien ideoligy as shown in the mini. They seem to have embraced all that is bad about the human race, God they've even evolved into human beings. Their main motivation seems to revenge, good old fashioned revenge which is fueled by the human emotion of hate, they also lust, know fear and love it seems.

If alien life does exist, I hope to God they have the same moral compass as human beings, if they don't we could be in a lot of trouble.

Also, I'd like to point out that Cylons are self-aware and therefore not animals and killing something that is incapable of doing you harm is illogical.

Peter

Darth Marley · December 24th, 2003, 03:28 AM

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

I would not cede that point.Perhaps it is a waste of energy.Cows are not a threat to me,but I may find logic in killing them as a food source.

These are Cylons,not Vulcans anyway.

Cylon ideology,or more accurately, religion, in the mini indicates they believe they have been give souls by a god that regrets the mistake of creating humans.

I also think the link between Al-Qaeda and the Cylons is not a one-to-one correspondence.Some comparison is valid,but to suggest that defending Cylons equates to defending Al-Qaeda is not an exercise in logic.

peter noble · December 24th, 2003, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darth Marley
Cows are not a threat to me,but I may find logic in killing them as a food source.

Human beings aren't cows, or a source of food.

The fact is you can't justify infanticide or the killing of billions upon billions of intelligent beings, there are no grey areas – it's just plain wrong!

Peter

Kester Pelagius · December 24th, 2003, 08:00 AM

Since this thread title is "the final word". . .

Quote:

Originally posted by peter noble
The fact is you can't justify infanticide or the killing of billions upon billions of intelligent beings, there are no grey areas – it's just plain wrong!

Issues of morality are irrelevent. The entire scene was inserted for pure shock value and serves no other purpose than to attempt to stir up exactly what it has stirred up here, a hornets nest.

Consider: We see Six. Six is established to have been on planet for an unspecified amount of time, but long enough to establish not only a very human relationship of a sexual nature with one horn-dog of a genius but she is stated to have been interacting with other humans for the purpose and intent of espionage. (All of that takes time, at least several months.)

To show such a character suddenly baffeled by a baby is, in a word, ridiculous. In two words: basely illogical. In more than three words: against the grain of the character as presented.

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. (Starting from civilian nets, medical databases, et al) Personal curiosity of humanity's biology aside, to show Six so taken with a human baby as was done is a major gaff. IOW: a continuity error.

This scene, IMHO, would have been better shown at the beginning, prior to the roll of the credits, instead of that non-sensical "Armistace" station sequence. As a lead-in, set up to introduce us to a newly arrived Six on planet Caprica, then jumping forward through time lapse to show her with Baltar. . . THAT would have worked.

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. But all that could have been ignored if the sequence was shown as a lead-in.

Just my humble opinion. YMMV.

edited for clarity

SpyOne · December 24th, 2003, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by peter noble

But consider this, RDM mentioned that he was "inspired" by the events of 9/11, if this is indeed the case, to follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, then the Cylons represent al-quaida.

Do you want to justify the killing of the baby now?

Peter

Sure, I'll tackle this one.

Killing a baby is evil.
Cylons are bad guys.
Bad guys are supposed to be evil.

What part of that confuses you?

BST · December 24th, 2003, 09:07 AM

NUMBER 6:

God wants children to grow and develop on their own. He wants them to reach their full potential. And so it is that parents must die.

But parents who stand in the way of God's plan, who defy his will... they must be struck down.

BALTAR

What's going on...?

NUMBER 6:

Humanity's children are returning home. Today.

Based on this dialogue, the Cylons would appear to be engaged in a jihad against the humans.

Based on REAL events on Planet Earth, the al-Qaeda organization is waging a jihad against the "Western industrialized countries".

A comparison between the two is legitimate.

Darth Marley · December 24th, 2003, 09:38 AM

Comparison legit,but not exactly corellary.

BST · December 24th, 2003, 09:48 AM

Darth,

I'm going by what has been stated previously by Moore. In the CA interview, he DID, in fact, state that he was influenced by the "events of 9/11" and for the viewers to interpret, for themselves, what it means to them. I believe it was the answer to Question# 35. Sorry, I don't have access to the interview, at the moment.

BST

Darth Marley · December 24th, 2003, 10:04 AM

I don't think I am misunderstanding you,and really don't disagree.

I stick by my statement :"I also think the link between Al-Qaeda and the Cylons is not a one-to-one correspondence.Some comparison is valid,but to suggest that defending Cylons equates to defending Al-Qaeda is not an exercise in logic."

I would hope that all of us in the western world would hate real terrorist much more than RDM's fictional creation.

peter noble · December 24th, 2003, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darth Marley
I would hope that all of us in the western world would hate real terrorist much more than RDM's fictional creation.

That's a given.

Going back to the motivations of Moore's Cylons, he seemes to say in all his interviews about the show, that the TOS Cylons's motivations were purely EVIL for the sake of somebody being the bad guy. This is not the case as a couple of bits of dialogue in Saga of a Star World inform us.

For all of his assertions about TOS Cylons, the Moore Cylons' motivations are no more clearer or as defined as the originals'.

They destroy the Colonials because God told them to. Yep, that one will go down well in a court of law!

Peter

December 24th, 2003, 12:20 PM

It seems to me we know as much about the cylons motives in '03 as we did in the pilot of TOS. Unless you've been lucky enought o see the unedited version of the pilot on tape, or now at last on dvd, the only version available has been an edited one where the (brief) history of the cylons that Apollo gives us is cut. Even with that history though, it's not a whole lot to go on. The '03 Cylons appear to be waging some kind of holy war, which I find more interesting personally, and seems to make more sense to me than the cylons of TOS killing us because they just don't understand us, which in itself seems like a continuity error in the face of such characters as Lucifer and Spectre and the Imperious Leader. These are not characters that seem to be unfamiliar with how human psychology works, as they appear to be afflicted with it as well.

Anyway, that's getting off topic. No one here is defending kiling babies. The issue here is, if labeling the act as "evil" is neccessarily correct in terms of Cylons. To us, certainly, it is evil, but that doesn't make it an evil act in intent. It's a matter of perspective. I'm not suggesting that this makes the act acceptable or forgivable, but in terms of the story and the characters being portrayed, it is not a scene that is unjustifiable in context of the film.

dec5 · December 24th, 2003, 01:09 PM

Genocide in TOS...it was just toned down for the family hour.......If BG TOS was made into a feature motion picture.....you can expect a bit more graphic scenes of Cylon terror....... Even LOTR ROTK showed some genocide in the battle scenes on civilians.....

peter noble · December 24th, 2003, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dec5
Genocide in TOS...it was just toned down for the family hour.......If BG TOS was made into a feature motion picture.....you can expect a bit more graphic scenes of Cylon terror....... Even LOTR ROTK showed some genocide in the battle scenes on civilians.....

Yep, you're right, the TOS killed billions upon billions of people, because they resented the way the Colonials' way of life, still somewhat relevant in this day and age regretably. The TOS Cylons see themselves as a force bringing order to the universe, while to them the humans represent chaos.

That's my take on it anyway.

Peter

dvo47p · December 24th, 2003, 03:14 PM

RATING & MONEY, Honey

Listen to David Eick, an Executive Producer of Battlestar Galatica lite!
WOW what a moral compass...............

"Who is to say the killing of the baby is an act of evil? That's our human prejudice. A natural reaction." -- David Eick, Battlestar Galactica 2003 mini-series producer, when asked about the baby killing scene where the skull of a Colonial infant is crushed by a Cylon robot. SciFi.com Chat on December 4, 2003 at 9 PM.

http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/2003/eick.12.4.html

December 24th, 2003, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dvo47p
RATING & MONEY, Honey

Listen to David Eick, an Executive Producer of Battlestar Galatica lite!
WOW what a moral compass...............

How exactly can one consider BSG'03 "lite" in comparison to TOS? I really can't get my head around this, the mini is 10 times heavier than TOS.

Quote:

"Who is to say the killing of the baby is an act of evil? That's our human prejudice. A natural reaction." -- David Eick, Battlestar Galactica 2003 mini-series producer, when asked about the baby killing scene where the skull of a Colonial infant is crushed by a Cylon robot. SciFi.com Chat on December 4, 2003 at 9 PM.

http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/2003/eick.12.4.html

Okay, first, the baby's skull is not crushed, its neck is snapped, let's be perfectly clear on that. Secondly, I must reiterate:

In regard to Mr.Eick's answer to the baby killing question, I would suggest that there's an issue of semmantics to be considered. No where does he defend the morality of killing babies. The fact is, evil is a product of intent, not action. Evil is a human construct that we apply to things, often to things outside ourselves that can not be labelled as such. If an animal finds an unprotected litre and proceeds to kill the babies, that is not an act of evil.

The question to be asked is, what was the intent behind 6's action. Cylon's are not human, and as such, applying our morality to them is much like applying it to an animal. The difference being that the Cylons are aware of our conceptions of what encompasses good and evil, they are not, however, required to come to those same conlsuions themselves.

So, did 6 kill the baby as an act of evil, or was it something else? Was it curiousity about the strength of the childs neck? Was it a mercy killing to spare the child the pain of nuclear incineration? There's much to be made of the pained expression on 6's face after having done the deed. Why is it there and what is she thinking?

What it comes down to is Eick is not defending killing babies, nor arguing that killing babies is not wrong. He is saying that it was not neccessarily an evil act on the part of the Cylon. When we put a dog down, that's not evil, and the mentality behind this for 6 could be much the same.

dec5 · December 24th, 2003, 05:19 PM

I think Number six embodies what is wrong with the holy war mentality.......the utter elimination of life just because you judge it obsolete and in the way.......her compassion is only based on how it fits the Cylon empire.

dvo47p · December 24th, 2003, 06:13 PM

RATING & MONEY, Honey

Listen to David Eick, an Executive Producer of Battlestar Galatica lite!
WOW what a moral compass...............

"Who is to say the killing of the baby is an act of evil?
That's our human prejudice. A natural reaction."

-- David Eick, Battlestar Galactica 2003 mini-series producer,
when asked about the baby killing scene where the skull of a
Colonial infant is crushed by a Cylon robot. SciFi.com Chat on
December 4, 2003 at 9 PM.

http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/2003/eick.12.4.html

SpyOne · December 25th, 2003, 05:00 AM

I didn't think she crushed its skull, I thought she broke its neck.

Little difference in the final analysis, but different.

dvo47p · December 25th, 2003, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SpyOne I didn't think she crushed its skull, I thought she broke its neck. Little difference in the final analysis, but different.

Infanticide: the final word is by Executive Producer David Eick, read his words from a Scifi chat................quote and hyperlink included.

"Who is to say the killing of the baby is an act of evil? That's our human prejudice. A natural reaction."

-- David Eick, Battlestar Galactica 2003 mini-series producer, when asked about the baby killing scene where the skull of a Colonial infant is crushed by a Cylon robot. SciFi.com Chat on December 4, 2003 at 9 PM.

http://www.scifi.com/transcripts/2003/eick.12.4.html

Darth Marley · December 25th, 2003, 12:09 PM

ChatMod: alvin-maker> to <ChatMod>: One of the things RDM has tried to do was to give the Cylons a motive other than just simply being "evil", yet in later drafts of the script and the rough cut, they still had the "babykilling" scene. Isn't this a step backwards?

DavidE: Who is to say the killing of the baby is an act of evil? That's our human prejudice. A natural reaction

DavidE: To any animal, killing often has many motives. Some of which -- many of which are not about morality

dvo47p · December 25th, 2003, 01:13 PM

Ok I have read all of David Eick's bon mots, and…………………

Quote:

Originally posted by Darth Marley
ChatMod: alvin-maker> to <ChatMod>: One of the things RDM has tried to do was to give the Cylons a motive other than just simply being "evil", yet in later drafts of the script and the rough cut, they still had the "babykilling" scene. Isn't this a step backwards?

DavidE: Who is to say the killing of the baby is an act of evil? That's our human prejudice. A natural reaction

DavidE: To any animal, killing often has many motives. Some of which -- many of which are not about morality

this one is called a distinction without a difference, so your point is what? Please do enlighten us with yours…….

Darth Marley · December 25th, 2003, 09:02 PM

Point is that I see people trying to equate his statement with lack of morals personally.Even to the point of suggesting that to appreciate the mini,one must support baby killing.

Taken in context,the quote does not support killing infants.It does comment on,for one thing,some actions having motives outside of moral conciderations.And this would certainly apply to a robot.Can Cylons be said to be moral in the first place?For that matter,can they be truly evil if they are soulless creatures?Wouldn't that make them destructive,deadly,and dangerous,but beyond good or evil?

Infanticide is practiced in several large and heavily armed cultures today.Certainly that does not make it right from my perspective.

A "human prejudice" is the reply when asked about the behavior of an artificial life form.There is the difference in the distinction.

Am I following the logic of contributors to this thread (and related ones)correctly as :
D.E. said Who is to say the killing of the baby is an act of evil? That's our human prejudice. A natural reaction
RDM said he was inpspired to make script changes by the events of 9/11/01.

So,anyone that enjoys the mini supports baby killing,terroism,and moral relativism?Those suppositions can be rehashed,and arguments for them are weak.

Well,the above is a bit of a strech,and perhaps I am injecting some of my own prejudice in favor of the mini as a whole.I am sure I will be corrected if this is an unfair inference.

It is a work of fiction
Bad acts were commited by "bad guys"
Moral constructs by humans would not necessarily apply to artificial life.

Now,I do understand the Manichean point of view directing that evil is just plain evil.Pointless to argue that A is not A,unless you invoke Godel's theorem of incompleteness.

The scene in question leaves room for doubt as the the motive,and even the method of the killing of the infant.I grant that using interviews and comments by the production team should clarify these questions.Taken in complete context of the question posed to D.E.,I do not see that it is a staement supporting infanticide.

Corwwyn · December 25th, 2003, 09:31 PM

...

[Post deleted, I had adapted a quote from B5, but in hindsight considered it a bit harsh. - Cor]

Darth Marley · December 25th, 2003, 09:41 PM

Hmm,..how adapted was it?

PM it to me if it is in response to me.

December 25th, 2003, 09:43 PM

It's getting to the point now where people are acting like the BSG mini is living in an artistic vaccuum.

I can agree if people point out parts of the mini that were written poorly. I can respect people's opinion if they didn't like it period. But all the 'outrage' regarding that scene (and if you include the scene where the girl who gets nuked on the agro ship) strikes me as somewhat over the top. I don't see anyone extending their outrage to Law and Order, The Professional, Joy Luck Club, Trainspotting, and a score of other shows whose plot includes violence against children.

I can understand that people don't like the mini. I didn't think it was the greatest sci fi show ever either. But I think alot of people need to step back, take a deep breath, and get some perspective about the scene.

Even though my impression of Eick is that he's a wanker, I'm not going to hang anyone on statements made in a chat room where someone else is probably typing and paraphrasing his answer. Again, perspective folks.

Corwwyn · December 25th, 2003, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darth Marley
Hmm,..how adapted was it?

The quote was intact, I just changed the speakers names.

Quote:

PM it to me if it is in response to me.

It wasn't in response to you, just something that seemed apt for this thread title when I ran across it.

After posting it it looked a tad harsh in my eyes, and might offend mini fans, which I did not intend.

Darth Marley · December 25th, 2003, 10:20 PM

Well,it is the ugly forum.
I would hope we mini-fans can take a joke.

Coming from B5 leads me to believe it may be some Minbari philosophy on morality.Contributions to that discussion would be welcome on my part.

Corwwyn · December 25th, 2003, 10:36 PM

Ok, here it is then. Apologies for the poor taste.

(Taken from B5:Midnight at the firing line, original version was a Londo/G'kar banter-snatch)

G2003makers to BSGfans:"We should've wiped out your kind when we had the chance."
BSGfans"What happened? Run out of small children to butcher?"