From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #32 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: 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. Nina ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:46:32 -0700 From: "Ellynne G." 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." 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." 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.) > > 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" To: "b7" 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: 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 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 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" 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 : And Penny: 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" 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: > 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" 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: 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 To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] 'Always Trusted You....' (was Motivations and Justifications) Message-Id: 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 To: Lysator 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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." 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." 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" To: "B7 List" 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" To: "b7" 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" 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: 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* 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. 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. 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" 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: 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" To: "blakes7" 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 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 To: Lysator List cc: Freedom City Subject: [B7L] Neutral Zone Message-ID: 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 To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] And now for something completely different Message-ID: 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 To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: b7 Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Message-ID: In message <000201bf6db1$dcd44100$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>, Neil Faulkner 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 *************************************