From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #32
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume00/32
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------"
To: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
Reply-To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
------------------------------
Content-Type: text/plain
blakes7-d Digest Volume 00 : Issue 32
Today's Topics:
[B7L] Re: FC: from the social pages?
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Re [B7L] Federation origins
Re: [B7L] Chocolate (was Wu Names)
Re: Re [B7L] Federation origins
Re: Re [B7L] Federation origins
[B7L] Re: FC: from the social pages?
[B7L] 'Always Trusted You....' (was Motivations and Justifications)
Re: [B7L] 'Always Trusted You....' (was Motivations and Justifications)
RE: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Re: [B7L] 'Always Trusted You....' (was Motivations and Justifications)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Re: [B7L] Guns (was motivations)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Re: [B7L] Wu Names
Re: [B7L] Wu Names
[B7L] Neutral Zone
[B7L] And now for something completely different
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 00:18:47 EST
From: Pherber@aol.com
To: freedom-city@blakes-7.org, blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: FC: from the social pages?
Message-ID: <4.ed6093.25c91837@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/31/00 3:11:03 AM Mountain Standard Time,
smanton@hotmail.com writes:
<< If I wear black, does it need to be leather? >>
Only if you want to wear the surly expression that naturally goes with it. <g>
Nina
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:46:32 -0700
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <19990201.225809.8422.1.Rilliara@juno.com>
On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 06:54:37 -0800 mistral@ptinet.net writes:
>
>
>Jonathan Coupe wrote:
>
>> > Well, yes. If you subscribe to the idea of psychological egoism
>>
>> Could someone tell me what non-pyschological egoism is, or how it's
>> possible?
>
>Per Webster's: *psychological egoism*- the ethical doctrine that
>individual self-interest is the _actual motive_ of all conscious
>action.
While I admit relying on the goodness of others without decent back up
systems and protections is a bad idea, I have to point out this is one of
those theories that assumes facts not in evidence, starting with the idea
all actions serve a selfish end and refusing to interpret them in a
different light. As one woman who studied rescuers during the holocaust
pointed out, the psychological lift was not a sufficient justification
for these risks--especially when so many others got along without it.
Besides, look at Avon. The guy would sooner date Servalan than admit he
did anything just because it was _right_.
Ellynne
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:58:07 -0700
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <19990201.225809.8422.2.Rilliara@juno.com>
Getting a little lost as to which M&J post I'm replying to, but--
On the issue of overthrowing unjust governments. On the one hand, I have
that deep rooted belief of all Americans that excess taxes on tea are
sufficient justification for years of guerilla warfare. OTOH, I've got a
deep rooted respect for government in general and know from history that
it's a lot easier to tear one down than to put something functional in
its place. Besides, I have ancestors who prided themselves on their
loyalty to governments that, to be honest, treated them like dirt.
Furthermore, given some of the results of that loyalty (overcoming
prejudices against them, etc), I can't say it was misplaced. But that's
also an issue of keeping one's word, etc (hey, Blake would do that [and
Avon _might_]).
In fiction, I lean a lot more towards overthrowing evil regimes over tea
taxes, however (which, as I don't drink tea, might be a little warped . .
. .). Did anyone in the Federation drink the stuff? Or was it the
Federation's restrictive tea trade that kept everyone drinking adrenaline
and soma, providing the real motive behind this revolution ("Avon, if we
don't blow up Star One, no one off of Travis' cousin's ship, The
Enterprise, will ever know what earl gray is." and Cally's reply, "Blake,
if we destroy Star One, many Postum investors will suffer.")
Ellynne
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:39:12 -0700
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <19990201.225809.8422.0.Rilliara@juno.com>
On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 07:31:08 -0800 mistral@ptinet.net writes:
>
>
>Sally Manton wrote:
>
>> Spacefall - he *genuinely* considers helping the crew to
>> space the prisoners, IMO (he thought seriously enough about
>> it to come up with the drawbacks - had he not been serious,
>> he wouldn't have got that far in his thinking.)
>
><g> Just to nit-pick; canonically, we only have Blake's word for that.
>
Not a nit. Since Blake trusted Avon from the beginning (I _do_ believe
him on that one), I think he either had other reasons for suggesting Avon
might kill them all (one of those male hierarchy games I never
understand, trying to cover for some semi-clever scheme, or going along
with Avon's need to have everyone think the worst of him before he can
work comfortably with others).
Ellynne
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:28:57 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re [B7L] Federation origins
Message-ID: <000601bf6d4b$f5b33340$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sally wrote:
<We actually don't know what the original Federation
was like, so it's no use stating that it was a good,
bad or indifferent method of government, that the
majority of people did or did not support it in its
early years (could have come in as a military coup as
far as I know - Neil? You wrote the book - can you
recall anything?). >
There is very little in the canon to go by. Nothing at all, even. We are
told in Pressure Point (the ep, not the zine, though copies of the latter
are still available plug plug) that the Federation started to expand in
earnest 200 years previously, and that all churches were demolished at the
start of the New Calendar, but nothing about *how* the Federation emerged,
what preceded it etc.
BBC publicity material refers to the Federation emerging from the aftermath
of the 'Atomic Wars', to which there is no reference within the aired canon.
I'm not aware of any further information on the Atomic Wars (such as who
fought who, and who won, and other minor details).
Neil
"...Lennon got in the habit of issuing vague orders for the creation of
evocative sounds (he once asked Martin to make a song sound like an
orange)."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 20:36:14 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Chocolate (was Wu Names)
Message-ID: <3897B43E.CCDB0619@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Nicola Collie wrote:
> Ob B7: How do Blake et al eat their Creme Eggs? Or chocolate bunnies, if
> you prefer.
Blake takes great delight in playing the Easter bunny, the celebration
of Easter being outlawed, due to its connection to various ancient
religions. He spends months gathering, sorting, taste-testing, and
filling baskets. By the time the chocolates are passed out, the very
smell of chocolate makes him ill.
Jenna eats the miniature creme eggs so she can pop them in her
mouth and avoid making an unattractive mess.
Gan breaks his eggs open and licks out the creme, like an Oreo
(chocolate sandwich cookie).
Cally eats hers like a soft-boiled egg, from an eggcup, with a spoon.
Tarrant likes to savor his; he curls up with a good book, skewers
his egg on a fork, and licks it like a lollipop.
Dayna uses her eggs for target practice--she likes the way they
splatter. Occasionally, when practicing archery, if the arrow
skewers the egg without breaking it, she nibbles the egg from
the shaft of the arrow.
Vila cleverly siphons out the creme filling with his thief's tools--
from everyone else's eggs.
Avon has switched to chocolate bunnies, because they have no
creme filling for Vila to steal. He eats them alone in his cabin, so
a) he won't be asked to share; b) no one will see how much he
enjoys them.
Travis eats crispy bunnies; he bites the heads off them when he's
angry, and throws the rest at the person he's angry at.
Servalan eats only imported miniature bunnies made of Belgian
chocolate and filled with exotic liqueurs.
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 00:41:42 -0700
From: Penny Dreadful <pennydreadful@powersurfr.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Federation origins
Message-Id: <4.1.20000202003432.00947d00@mail.powersurfr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 07:28 PM 01/02/00 +0000, Neil Faulkner wrote:
>BBC publicity material refers to the Federation emerging from the aftermath
>of the 'Atomic Wars', to which there is no reference within the aired canon.
Rumours of Death:
"TARRANT: Place feels old. Do you suppose this part's original? Genuinely
pre-Atomic?"
--Penny, Vainly Attempting To Pick A Fight
______________________________
"No rules, no naps, no shoes!"
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 01:59:51 PST
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Federation origins
Message-ID: <20000202095951.50018.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Neil :
<BBC publicity material refers to the Federation emerging from the aftermath
of the 'Atomic Wars', to which there is no reference within the aired
canon.>
And Penny:
<Rumours of Death:
"TARRANT: Place feels old. Do you suppose this part's
original? Genuinely pre-Atomic?"
--Penny, Vainly Attempting To Pick A Fight>
Might not be the War, though. Pre-Atomic Era (i e pre-1945)
or - um - pre-Atomic-Wiping-Nearly-Everyone-Out-By-Accident, or pre-Atomic
Tea Famine...
Sally, Trying Forlornly to Oblige....
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 02:06:09 PST
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: FC: from the social pages?
Message-ID: <20000202100609.60077.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Nina wrote:
<Only if you want to wear the surly expression that naturally goes with it.
<g>>
Given the way said expression would look (my nose is not nearly as
impressive as his. Or as big. Sneers just look comical on my lips, and the
usual cloud of amiable absent-mindedness does not quite fit the snarly
image) I think not...maybe I should imitate Vila instead (thinking back to
what *he* was wearing then? Um. No.)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 02:38:37 PST
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] 'Always Trusted You....' (was Motivations and Justifications)
Message-ID: <20000202103838.53850.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Ellyne wrote:
<Since Blake trusted Avon from the beginning (I _do_ believe
him on that one), I think he either had other reasons for suggesting Avon
might kill them all (one of those male hierarchy games I never
understand, trying to cover for some semi-clever scheme, or going along with
Avon's need to have everyone think the worst of him before he can work
comfortably with others).>
Oh, I can agree that Blake did trust Avon in Spacefall - but not to either
Do The Right Thing for moral reasons, nor loyalty Avon surely didn't feel
yet. I think that at that stage what Blake trusted was Avon's sense and
intelligence, that he would think about the plan, but not go into it without
being absolutely sure; he would decide against it, if left to think of the
drawbacks (love to know how he persuaded the others - especially Jenna and
Vila, maybe Arco - to lay off *while* Avon had that good long think.) They
each had absolutely no illusions from Day (or Minute) One how dangerous the
other really was...
(See Avon's face when Blake says that, BTW. He wouldn't have been
discomfited in the slightest if Blake *hadn't* read so clearly what
he was thinking - both the idea and the drawbacks.)
Cygnus Alpha is a hell of a lot harder to fit into the statement, but I see
it as he trusted Avon *not* to force the issue and leave before the time was
up (which he may have argued to, but not *all* that hard- he could have
stopped Jenna hitting that button if his heart had been in it.)
It wasn't till Time Squad that he deliberately chose to trust Avon to act
from motives of loyalty and/or care, or even just plain common humanity, but
I don't see that as making "I have always trusted you" untrue in essence;
Time Squad is where their relationship actually *starts* for me. And lets
face it, in those last few minutes, Avon's just said that "can't you trust
me..." which is considerably *less* true and must have hurt, they were both
facing probable death, it wasn't really the moment to qualify one's feelings
so rigidly...
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 10:59:54 +0000 (GMT)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] 'Always Trusted You....' (was Motivations and Justifications)
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000202105747.1492A-100000@bsauasc>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I always thought Blake had an idiosyncratic definition of trust, such that
"I trust you" means "I understand you well enough to predict how you'll
behave in any situation I stick you into". I think he trusted Avon in this
manner since their first meeting on the "London".
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 12:13:20 +0100
From: Jacqueline Thijsen <jacqueline.thijsen@cmg.nl>
To: Lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: RE: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <39DCDDFD014ED21185C300104BB3F99FB5F01C@NL-ARN-MAIL01>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Ellyne wrote:
> On the issue of overthrowing unjust governments. On the one
> hand, I have
> that deep rooted belief of all Americans that excess taxes on tea are
> sufficient justification for years of guerilla warfare.
ROFLMAO!
One of my rats was sleeping on my lap while I was reading my mail (and still
is, which is why I'm using only one hand to type this) and it looked up at
me very strangely when I read this.
Tiger M wrote:
> In a message dated 02/01/2000 8:51:35 PM Central Standard Time,
> kat@welkin.apana.org.au writes:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 06:20:36AM -0800, mistral@ptinet.net wrote:
>> >
>> > is done about it. Our constitutional right to bear arms is being
>> > slowly but methodically dismantled in the name of lowering the
>> > crime rate, even though statistics from Australia and Canada
>> > demonstrate that crimes will actually increase.
>>
>> *WHAT*?!!!!
>>
>> Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
>
>I'm beginning to wonder just where Mistral is getting her information and
>whether it's reliable.
Same here. From what I've heard, violent crime rates are lower in those
countries where guns are not readily available, but a quick search on yahoo
didn't provide me with any statistics to back that up, so all I have to back
up that claim is an article in a magazine I read several years ago. If my
memory is correct, a possible explanation given in that article was that
people who didn't own guns were less likely to get a red haze in front of
their eyes and shoot their poker buddies for cheating (well, they would get
the red haze, but without the gun the results wouldn't be quite so bad).
The rat just decided it didn't want to be petted anymore and moved to the
top of the couch, so I now have both hands free for typing.
>While Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, I don't think anyone
>needs a machine gun to go deer hunting or defend his/her home.
Ok, here I can only state what I've heard on McGyver, so anyone with actual
knowledge of US law feel free to correct me: That right to bear arms is
*not* mentioned in the constitution. Instead, there is the right to form a
militia. Now I admit that I'm not a native speaker, so I may have the
meaning of the word militia all wrong, but to me a militia is an group of
people who practice with their weapons for the express purpose of defending
the home soil against a foreign invasion. I fail to see how this gives
anyone who is not a member of a militia the right to keep and bear arms.
Dragging this back to matters B7: was anything ever said about weapons
regulations in the B7 universe? We saw very few civilians with weapons, but
when they did show them it didn't seem to come as much of a shock to anyone.
Bad acting or an actual right to bear arms? And for everyone or only the
higher grades?
Jacqueline
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 06:14:59 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <38983BE1.6FEFDEB9@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Due to the vagaries of e-mail, I haven't seen either Kathryn's
or Tiger's post about this, so I'm answering this all of a piece.
Jacqueline Thijsen wrote:
> Tiger M wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 02/01/2000 8:51:35 PM Central Standard Time,
> > kat@welkin.apana.org.au writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 06:20:36AM -0800, mistral@ptinet.net wrote:
> >> >
> >> > is done about it. Our constitutional right to bear arms is being
> >> > slowly but methodically dismantled in the name of lowering the
> >> > crime rate, even though statistics from Australia and Canada
> >> > demonstrate that crimes will actually increase.
> >>
> >> *WHAT*?!!!!
> >>
> >> Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
> >
> >I'm beginning to wonder just where Mistral is getting her information and
> >whether it's reliable.
>
> Same here. From what I've heard, violent crime rates are lower in those
> countries where guns are not readily available, but a quick search on yahoo
> didn't provide me with any statistics to back that up, so all I have to back
> up that claim is an article in a magazine I read several years ago.
<sigh> Well, if they are lies, damned lies, and statistics, they aren't
mine. I was channel-surfing a few weeks ago and ran across the
end of a documentary about gun rights. It did show statistics for
several types of violent crimes that had increased in Australia since
the last laws were passed; from burglary through murder with rises
as high as 19%, plus listing home invasions as becoming a problem
whereas they were previously nearly unheard of. There were also
interviews with several citizens, including one police officer who
said that police were against the laws because they'd made their
job more dangerous and difficult.
> >While Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, I don't think anyone
> >needs a machine gun to go deer hunting or defend his/her home.
>
> Ok, here I can only state what I've heard on McGyver, so anyone with actual
> knowledge of US law feel free to correct me: That right to bear arms is
> *not* mentioned in the constitution. Instead, there is the right to form a
> militia.
<g> And as B7 fans, we all know how accurate an informational
source fictional television drama is.
The actual text:
Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Source:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
> Now I admit that I'm not a native speaker, so I may have the
> meaning of the word militia all wrong, but to me a militia is an group of
> people who practice with their weapons for the express purpose of defending
> the home soil against a foreign invasion. I fail to see how this gives
> anyone who is not a member of a militia the right to keep and bear arms.
Please check the wording. It does talk about a militia, yes. But it
expressly says the right of the people. Not the right of militia members.
Particularly when you apply amendment nine, you cannot use the
mention of a militia to say that only militia members can bear arms.
Nor does it say you can restrict the type of arms the people can bear.
At any rate, the B7-related point I was trying to make was that
people will differ about how much infringement of their rights
they will accept before they think it's worth rebelling. I think we've
successfully demonstrated that people will even disagree about
whether their rights are being infringed upon at all. Perhaps the
bulk of Federation citizenry is not at all concerned about a portion
of the population being drugged. Maybe it's a price they're willing
to pay to keep the system working. (Not that I would agree with
that; but then, for obvious reasons, I never assume other people
will think as I do.)
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 06:30:49 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <38983F98.DA4172AD@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ellynne G. wrote:
> >Per Webster's: *psychological egoism*- the ethical doctrine that
> >individual self-interest is the _actual motive_ of all conscious
> >action.
>
> While I admit relying on the goodness of others without decent back up
> systems and protections is a bad idea, I have to point out this is one of
> those theories that assumes facts not in evidence, starting with the idea
> all actions serve a selfish end and refusing to interpret them in a
> different light.
Mm, I'm confused. I don't think it assumes that as a fact; that *is*
the theory. Not that people are selfish, but that when they are what
we think of as unselfish, they are, as always, simply doing what
will make them feel best. As in, helping others at risk to myself
actually makes me feel better than watching their suffering without
doing anything about it.
> As one woman who studied rescuers during the holocaust
> pointed out, the psychological lift was not a sufficient justification
> for these risks--especially when so many others got along without it.
That simply demonstrates that not everyone feels the same way
as a result of every type of action. Surely you've felt or heard
someone say "I couldn't live with myself if I didn't... (insert
difficult or painful or self-sacrificial action here.)"
> Besides, look at Avon. The guy would sooner date Servalan than admit he
> did anything just because it was _right_.
I suspect Avon is an egoist in every sense of the word.
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 06:42:42 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] 'Always Trusted You....' (was Motivations and Justifications)
Message-ID: <38984261.6412EEAD@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sally Manton wrote:
> And lets
> face it, in those last few minutes, Avon's just said that "can't you trust
> me..." which is considerably *less* true and must have hurt, they were both
> facing probable death, it wasn't really the moment to qualify one's feelings
> so rigidly...
Mm. Avon gave his word to Blake to fight the Andromedans, and
then Blake shows up on the flight deck? This must have looked to
Avon as if Blake didn't trust his word; IMHO that question popped
out because Avon was hurt. Besides, what better time to express
caring for your friends than when you think you're about to die?
Isn't that sort of a fiction staple--revelations and bonding in the
lull before battle?
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 07:26:33 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <38984CA7.8F7D8511@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Julia Jones wrote:
> >people (or their ancestors) *chose* to submit.
>
> They chose? In a system clearly demonstrated to be using drugs to
> influence that choice, if not remove it altogether, during the period
> the series is set in, that's not quite the same as an active choice for
> life as a slave as being better than death.
>
> This is the point you keep ignoring - the people depicted in the dome in
> _The Way Back_ do not have the ability to make the choice. That ability
> has been removed from them.
I'm not ignoring it, Julia; I simply don't agree that it gives Blake
the right to make it for them. He can't know for sure that, if you
undrugged them long enough to make a coherent decision, that
they would choose death over being drugged. In TWB, we were
also shown people who seemed to be living happy lives and have
no idea there was anything wrong. And it would appear that the
bulk of people that would die as a result of destroying Star One
were from other planets, where we saw no instances of mass
drugging before the galactic war.
I'd like to reiterate that I'm all in favour of Blake fighting the
Federation; it's only a couple of his tactics I think are poor choices.
> Using an example from later in the series - you are claiming that rebels
> who have been surreptitiously or forcibly treated with Pylene 50 have
> chosen to submit to the Federation, because they are no longer fighting
> back.
Actually, no I'm not. The Helots had declared their independence
and were being conquered. I'd have no difficulty with our heros
going in on their side. That's the only case where I could see
assuming what those other people would want, though, because
we *know* that they didn't submit to avoid being killed, and the
Helot government *does* have the right to resist. Apart from
that, canon tells us that mass drugging for conquest began after
the galactic war, and therefore isn't a factor with regard to Star One.
> And again, I would ask - why is it wrong for Blake to make a decision on
> behalf of the Federation victims, but right for their ancestors to do
> so?
Because parents have authority over their children. I'd regard
a chain of authority stretching back over generations to when a
choice could in fact be made as more valid than the decision of
a total stranger who knows nothing about the people whose
lives he's affecting. We're all subject to the consequences of
choices our ancestors made.
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:13:20 -0700
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <19990202.092908.9790.0.Rilliara@juno.com>
On Wed, 02 Feb 2000 06:30:49 -0800 mistral@ptinet.net writes:
>
>Mm, I'm confused. I don't think it assumes that as a fact; that *is*
>the theory. Not that people are selfish, but that when they are what
>we think of as unselfish, they are, as always, simply doing what
>will make them feel best. As in, helping others at risk to myself
>actually makes me feel better than watching their suffering without
>doing anything about it.
>
It strikes me as one of those theories that disregards contradictory
evidence by definition, like the great one they used to have about
brontosaurs. It was that brontosaurs wallowed in water all day to support
their weight. They knew this because brontosaur bones were always found
where there was evidence of large amounts of water--and went on to say
finding brontosaur bones in an area was conclusive evidence of there
having been large amounts of water even if there was no other evidence,
because brontosaurs always hung out where there was lots of water.
Then someone finally did calculations about an animal that size and shape
trying to breathe with all that water pressing down on the rib cage. The
circular arguments of brontosaurs (now called apatosaurs) and water were
abandoned.
Anyhow, to have a theory rejecting true altruism and then rejecting
evidence of altruism because you already 'know' there isn't such a thing
strikes me as the same kind of circular reasoning. Also, the explanations
I've read for truly incredible acts of altruism, under this theory, make
someone who risked their life to save a stranger sound as neurotic as,
say, an anorexic who starved herself to death to meet some fashion ideal
she had in her head. Since the evidence actually shows these people were
very much the opposite, evidence seems to come down on the side of
altruism existing.
Ellynne
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:29:06 -0700
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Guns (was motivations)
Message-ID: <19990202.092908.9790.1.Rilliara@juno.com>
I'm probably going to regret this, but--
OK, the right to bear arms, as outlined in the Constitution, refers to it
specifically in terms of a militia. More importantly, earlier drafts and
the discussions on the issue focused on things such as the states' right
to limit who could bear arms, drafting fighters, and so on. Since these
elements were actually considered redundant, outlining rights and laws
the states already had, they were dropped. Remember, Americans at this
time saw central government as a necessary evil. They had particularly
strong objections to a strong, national army in peace time. State
militias were considered far less threatening (the New York militia is
not likely to listen if the president gets power hungry and tells them to
take over their home state).
There's also about 200 years of legal decisions backing up the militia
interpretation.
OTOH, countries with lower rates of violent crime also have some big
cultural differences and they _don't_ have 200 million privately owned
weapons already floating around. For a variety of much argued reasons,
there's a violent subculture in America (73% of the world's known serial
killers are here) that isn't going to be changed overnight.
Just one of those problems Blake probably _couldn't_ solve.
Ellynne
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 18:01:55 -0000
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: "B7 List" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <00ba01bf6da7$b0bcea40$ca8edec2@pre-installedco>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Mm, I'm confused. I don't think it assumes that as a fact; that *is*
>the theory. Not that people are selfish, but that when they are what
>we think of as unselfish, they are, as always, simply doing what
>will make them feel best. As in, helping others at risk to myself
>actually makes me feel better than watching their suffering without
>doing anything about it.
What has happened here is that you have extended the definition of 'egoism'
so that it covers people who love helping other people, who feel good when
they help other people, and go out of their way to help other people no
matter what the damage to their own personal interests.
The term has been redefined so broadly that it no longer has the meaning
that it has in common currency. It has become self-reductive, and it no
longer helps us to predict anything about how anyone would behave.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:37:19 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <000201bf6db1$dcd44100$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Julia replied to Mistral thus:
> This is the point you keep ignoring - the people depicted in the dome in
> _The Way Back_ do not have the ability to make the choice. That ability
> has been removed from them.
And that at least is true. But we should remember that those zombies
shuffling around the corridors were the exception rather than the rule, in
terms of what we got to see on screen. There is no other reference, as far
as I can recall, to systematic tranquilisation of the populace
pre-Andromedan War (the prisoners on the London don't count).
Yes, I know we've been through all this before, and I don't want to reopen
the debate. I'll just duly note that there are some people who take what we
see in The Way Back to be indicative of the Federation citizenry as a whole,
and others (like me) who remain unconvinced. The point I'm making is that
defending Blake's right (to assume the responsibility of choice for others
on the basis of those people being unable to choose for themselves) is
distinctly shaky, since it rests on the canonically unsupported (yet equally
undenied) mass tranquilisation of the people as a whole, not just those seen
in the first episode.
(A more pertinent point is that I should pay more attention to the length of
my sentences...)
However, in the ongoing debate of Mistral v Rest of the World, I'm largely
with the Rest, insofar as I've paid much attention to the posts. What they
seem to be skirting around is the nature of 'right' and 'wrong' in the moral
sense, whether or not such concepts have absolute or merely relative
meanings, or indeed whether they have any validity in the first place.
Since some of the finest minds in history have been arguing about that for
millennia and failed to come up with an answer, I don't see much point in
joining in.
Neil
"...Lennon got in the habit of issuing vague orders for the creation of
evocative sounds (he once asked Martin to make a song sound like an
orange)."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 12:43:05 PST
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <20000202204305.83838.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Mistral wrote:
<In TWB, we were also shown people who seemed to be living happy lives and
have no idea there was anything wrong.>
A very small few - a relative handful (and they're doing it by firmly
closing their eyes IMO, but that has historical basis.)
As I've said before, I think you assume the Federation is a lot more benign
and allows a lot more personal freedoms than I do, and that a *massively*
lot more people are happy and contented with their lot under it. I don't
think there's any evidence of the latter at all.
<And it would appear that the bulk of people that would die as a result of
destroying Star One were from other planets, where we saw no instances of
mass drugging before the galactic war.>
*And* that they are definitely not the same ones as above...in fact, though
there's - as usual - little proof of how many federation citizens were
oppressed, from the remative information *on* those who can be said to have
some debased form of free will and those who most definitely don't, my
reading is the vast majority are among the latter. The outer planets, after
all, were the ones that seem to have been taken by expansion and conquest,
*never* by choice.
There's no evidence in the series that the numbers of people *not* being
forced into acquiesance are at all a sifnificant number. The fact remains
that, by insisting that his methods must fit moral standards that (on the
evidence of the series IMO) don't work for the time, a decision *is* being
made. If you were Blake, and followed your reasoning, you would also be
making that moral decision with no more 'right' - on behalf of the people
who wanted freedom and literally *could not* fight for it for themselves.
You would be denying *them* any chance at free will. You would be condemning
them to a continuation of virtual slavery (because their ancestors made a
gross error of judgement, or lost their own battle against invaders, or
because the people in positions of vested power/interests are comfortable,
and their freedom of choice appears to matter more than other people's lack
thereof) rather than cross a moral point which - as I see it - is invalid
for their time and place. And the results would (again IMO) be far worse,
because of the context.
<The Helots had declared their independence and were being conquered. I'd
have no difficulty with our heros going in on their side.>
So what you're saying is that people who have been forcibly silenced have no
rights? Or people who are a little weaker than Our Heroes (who are silenced
by threats) lose their rights because of their fallibility? Or the people of
the outer planets lose that right because their ancestors lost the same
fight the Helots are losing? Can't accept this argument at all, at all.
<Because parents have authority over their children.>
They're not children any more. Yes, we're subject, but we should be allowed
*some* way out of the ghastly results of wrong choices in the past, and if I
had no way out myself, I'd prefer to have someone like Blake who cared that
I was suffering *and couldn't do anything about it* than someone who said
"if you can't fight for yourself, no one's allowed to do it for you." Sorry,
Mistral, but I see your view as a policy of perfection, a nice theoretical
virtue that in real life often causes more *real* suffering (as policies of
perfection often do) than the sometimes morally blurred but reality-based
behaviour of Our Heroes (and people in real past lives.)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 12:54:46 PST
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <20000202205446.8207.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Neil wrote:
<However, in the ongoing debate of Mistral v Rest of the World, I'm largely
with the Rest, insofar as I've paid much attention to the posts....>
Actually, I think I'm repeating myself now, and that's hardly the way to
convince anyone, so I'll pull out and think of something else to argue
about.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:14:38 -0000
From: "Deborah Day" <d.day@ukgateway.net>
To: "blakes7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Wu Names
Message-ID: <011501bf6dc2$83cb8760$0e82bc3e@oemcomputer>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Neil Faulkner wrote:
>> Chocolatey Nazi
>>Careful, Neil. Somebody will bite off your ears.
I think there was a survey done which showed that nearly everybody bit the
heads off jelly babies. Personally I always suck mine but I'm not sure what
that says about me.
Debbie.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 100 15:38:04 +0000
From: huh@ccm.net
To: blakes7 <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Wu Names
Message-Id: <200002022138.PAA20032@bowe.ccm.net>
>
> I think there was a survey done which showed that nearly everybody bit the
> heads off jelly babies. Personally I always suck mine but I'm not sure what
> that says about me.
something that can only be discussed on the freedom city list. ;)
>
> Debbie.
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------
This message was sent via the CCMnet Mailman.
Visit our website: http://www.ccm.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:50:10 +0000 (GMT)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
cc: Freedom City <freedom-city@blakes-7.org>
Subject: [B7L] Neutral Zone
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-0202215010-9eeRr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Gareth's part in Equus means that he will no longer be able to attend the
Neutral Zone convention.
However, the convention still has James Morrison and Joel de la Fuente from
Sapce Above and Beyond, plus various other people (though sadly no others from
B7). It's a friendly event run by some very nice people.
Their new web site is http://www.jedinet.com/starpark/neutralzone/
JUdith
--
http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs,
pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth
Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.nas.com/~lknight )
Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 22:05:17 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.jones@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] And now for something completely different
Message-ID: <txJoniAdoKm4EwOc@jajones.demon.co.uk>
After *that* topic arose on alt.fan.blakes7 a couple of days ago, I
suggested that it would be simpler if people there came and read our
archives rather than we took the argum^debate over there. Someone asked
me how far back. The answer appears to be "three weeks". Eek.
Perhaps it's time to find something else to talk about (as well, not
necessarily instead of), before we scare away prospective customers. And
no, the FanQ gen/slash debate is not a good place to start:-)
Something on my mind at the moment (she says, trying not to swear at her
voice recognition software because it already knows far too many naughty
words after only a month) is how widespread true artificial intelligence
is in the B7 universe. Avon refuses to believe (at least to begin with)
that Zen is self-aware, which suggests that it's something very unusual.
But it's not impossible to create with technology available in the
Federation - Belkov does so with Gambit, who certainly looks self-aware
to me. Thoughts?
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:16:37 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: b7 <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <yyzfHUA16Jm4Ew8V@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <000201bf6db1$dcd44100$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>, Neil Faulkner
<N.Faulkner@tesco.net> writes
>And that at least is true. But we should remember that those zombies
>shuffling around the corridors were the exception rather than the rule, in
>terms of what we got to see on screen. There is no other reference, as far
>as I can recall, to systematic tranquilisation of the populace
>pre-Andromedan War (the prisoners on the London don't count).
Wandering off in a slightly different direction - not so much the
exception rather than the rule, as that after The Way Back we see very
little of the civilian population of the Federation. We see senior
officials, troopers, quarries, rebels, independent planets - but not
much of your average Joe Citizen.
Budgetary pressures, of course, but referring to Real World explanations
isn't playing the game.
The Way Back contains explicit references to the dome population as a
whole being drugged. (I'm not going poking about in transcripts, it
involves too much mousework.) It's obvious that the degree of drugging
varies. The implication of The Way Back is that the majority of the
Terran population lives in domes. It's not clear, because it's not shown
or explicitly referred to, to what degree the population of Federation
colony worlds is domed or otherwise susceptible (pre-Pylene 50) to drug-
based mind control.
And that's enough ranting for the evening, time to deal with the private
correspondence while my hands still work...
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #32
*************************************