|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 1, 2010 19:17:34 GMT
Nope. I'm saying that the act, divorced from all moral justifications or ambiguities, is a bitch move. It was mean to Renard to lead him on in that manner. Perhaps Surma had a good reason for doing it. Perhaps she was just following orders, or she was trying to save Renard's life, or she was leading him on for the greater good of the Court. I imagine we'll find out eventually but the act itself was mean. Similarly, Jack was creepy as hell around Annie and Jeanne was being petty when she destroyed all those (presumably self-aware) robots. After we saw more of the story we could understand those actions, empathize with the characters, accept their internal justifications, and see the larger context in which the actions took place. It's a mark of good storytelling that people can do mean, petty, and/or creepy things and not have that be the whole of their characterization. But Jack was creepy, Jeanne was being petty, and, in my opinion, Surma was being mean. The age question was because there is a coating on brain cells that are completely in place sometime in the early 20's. That's why children see things in black and white and why teenagers are somewhat extra sensitive. (As soon as the coating starts to build... well its like seeing in color for the first time... it takes a while to adapt to all the new information) If stealing the medicine was wrong, then the man should not have done it and let his wife suffer. (This is not real life, just an exercise, asking rich aunt joan for money isn't part of it) If stealing the medicine was right, he did the right thing by stealing and saving his wife from suffering but he must make restitution to the pharmacist. Using only these two responses, was stealing the medicine right or wrong? Maybe stealing it was wrong and he should make restitution, but he still should have done it? I mean, we can respect the law and accept the consequences for our actions (eg maybe he should have turned himself in after stealing the pills) while still doing what we think will lead to the best outcome (stealing the pills in the first place). Anyway this is a bit of a derail, as it has nothing to do with the comic at hand. Didn't you make a moral philosophy thread for dilemmas like this one?
|
|
|
Post by atteSmythe on Nov 1, 2010 19:18:11 GMT
Using only these two responses I reject the premise.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 1, 2010 19:20:42 GMT
Using only these two responses I reject the premise. You know those stories where one train is headed southbound going X miles an hour and another is heading northbound going Y miles an hour.... you can't take the plane on those either!
|
|
|
Post by bnpederson on Nov 1, 2010 19:20:58 GMT
The age question was because there is a coating on brain cells that are completely in place sometime in the early 20's. That's why children see things in black and white and why teenagers are somewhat extra sensitive. (As soon as the coating starts to build... well its like seeing in color for the first time... it takes a while to adapt to all the new information) If stealing the medicine was wrong, then the man should not have done it and let his wife suffer. (This is not real life, just an exercise, asking rich aunt joan for money isn't part of it) If stealing the medicine was right, he did the right thing by stealing and saving his wife from suffering but he must make restitution to the pharmacist. Using only these two responses, was stealing the medicine right or wrong? Um, okay. That's... interesting? The act of stealing the medicine is wrong. The act of allowing his wife suffer is wrong. Accepting all other possibilities have been exhausted I'd say the act of letting his wife suffer is a greater wrong than stealing, therefore the stealing is justified. This does not make the act of stealing right.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 1, 2010 19:23:45 GMT
I think Jayne's point is that whatever hurt Surma may have caused Renard by not replying to him when he said he loved her, is mitigated and justified if it's being done in the interests of saving his life.
In this case it's not simply a matter of the fact that saving his life was more important than dealing with his infatuation right at that moment, but indeed, attempting to deal with his infatuation at that moment might have discouraged him from coming to the Court which would have actually jeopardized his life more.
Sort of like "Yanking your child's arm is always wrong! (unless it's to pull them out of the way of an oncoming car...)"
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 1, 2010 19:24:03 GMT
The age question was because there is a coating on brain cells that are completely in place sometime in the early 20's. That's why children see things in black and white and why teenagers are somewhat extra sensitive. (As soon as the coating starts to build... well its like seeing in color for the first time... it takes a while to adapt to all the new information) If stealing the medicine was wrong, then the man should not have done it and let his wife suffer. (This is not real life, just an exercise, asking rich aunt joan for money isn't part of it) If stealing the medicine was right, he did the right thing by stealing and saving his wife from suffering but he must make restitution to the pharmacist. Using only these two responses, was stealing the medicine right or wrong? Maybe stealing it was wrong and he should make restitution, but he still should have done it? I mean, we can respect the law and accept the consequences for our actions (eg maybe he should have turned himself in after stealing the pills) while still doing what we think will lead to the best outcome (stealing the pills in the first place). Anyway this is a bit of a derail, as it has nothing to do with the comic at hand. Didn't you make a moral philosophy thread for dilemmas like this one? Well, it pertains... If Surma is doing something because she was told to do something or because she felt it was the better choice, then not doing it is wrong. But you're saying she shouldn't have done what she did no matter why she did it.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 1, 2010 19:25:07 GMT
The age question was because there is a coating on brain cells that are completely in place sometime in the early 20's. That's why children see things in black and white and why teenagers are somewhat extra sensitive. (As soon as the coating starts to build... well its like seeing in color for the first time... it takes a while to adapt to all the new information) If stealing the medicine was wrong, then the man should not have done it and let his wife suffer. (This is not real life, just an exercise, asking rich aunt joan for money isn't part of it) If stealing the medicine was right, he did the right thing by stealing and saving his wife from suffering but he must make restitution to the pharmacist. Using only these two responses, was stealing the medicine right or wrong? Um, okay. That's... interesting? The act of stealing the medicine is wrong. The act of allowing his wife suffer is wrong. Accepting all other possibilities have been exhausted I'd say the act of letting his wife suffer is a greater wrong than stealing, therefore the stealing is justified. This does not make the act of stealing right. We're not discussing the act of stealing, just this instance of stealing. In this specific case, was it right or wrong for this man to steal the medicine? Edit: sorry, I just realized you've already answered.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 1, 2010 19:27:11 GMT
It's even possible that the Court higher-ups TOLD Surma "If you don't get him to come into the Court where we can monitor him and keep him away from Coyote, we are going to kill him outright."
(She couldn't tell Renard this of course because if she said that the Court wanted to kill him, he would never go there.)
|
|
|
Post by strangebloke on Nov 1, 2010 19:43:08 GMT
I think we should wait on judgement here. If Annie's reaction is anything to go by, the implications of anja's statement are not TOO bad. If they were, she might react like she did when Jack imprisoned Renardine, or when people start talking about her mother in general.
Besides, Surma=emtionless loser is not consistent with what little we know of her. She is not someone who has been shown to follow orders at the expense of her friends. Remember when she stuck up for anja? Remember her talking about how stupid it was of the court to put them in chester? I have better faith in Tom than to think he would put such inconsistencies into his writing.
Renard is a trickster, but he is fairly harmless. Under Coyote's influence, he could easily become more malicious. Its not bad for her to want him to come to the court. She was misguided, perhaps, but that is understandable considering her employers.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 1, 2010 19:47:40 GMT
Maybe stealing it was wrong and he should make restitution, but he still should have done it? I mean, we can respect the law and accept the consequences for our actions (eg maybe he should have turned himself in after stealing the pills) while still doing what we think will lead to the best outcome (stealing the pills in the first place). Anyway this is a bit of a derail, as it has nothing to do with the comic at hand. Didn't you make a moral philosophy thread for dilemmas like this one? Well, it pertains... If Surma is doing something because she was told to do something or because she felt it was the better choice, then not doing it is wrong. But you're saying she shouldn't have done what she did no matter why she did it. Well, why don't we discuss Surma, then, instead of this theoretical broke guy who robs pharmacies? Surma had the option of being honest with Rey, but wasn't for whatever reason. By my reckoning, Surma ought to have informed Rey about what was going at the outset (before starting to woo him romantically) on so he could make his own informed decision about his future. Barring that, she should have refused to take part in this scheme. I mean assuming she was working in a professional capacity, she did have the option of turning in her two-weeks-notice and polishing the old resume instead of going through with this. If some other arrangement existed, and/or she were placed under some sort of duress, she should still have at least warned Rey. Edit: and that last bit also applies in the case of these mythical robot ninja assassins who can go into the forest and kill people there at will without anyone else noticing and starting a war over it. And who also apparently are omniscient.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 1, 2010 19:49:42 GMT
Well, it pertains... If Surma is doing something because she was told to do something or because she felt it was the better choice, then not doing it is wrong. But you're saying she shouldn't have done what she did no matter why she did it. Well, why don't we discuss Surma, then, instead of this theoretical broke guy who robs pharmacies? Surma had the option of being honest with Rey, but wasn't for whatever reason. By my reckoning, Surma ought to have informed Rey about what was going at the outset (before starting to woo him romantically) on so he could make his own informed decision about his future. Barring that, she should have refused to take part in this scheme. I mean assuming she was working in a professional capacity, she did have the option of turning in her two-weeks-notice and polishing the old resume instead of going through with this. If some other arrangement existed, and/or she were placed under some sort of duress, she should still have at least warned Rey. In other words, Surma had the choice of tricking him or not tricking him? No shades of gray at all? Is it ever right to trick someone?
|
|
|
Post by bnpederson on Nov 1, 2010 19:51:17 GMT
It's even possible that the Court higher-ups TOLD Surma "If you don't get him to come into the Court where we can monitor him and keep him away from Coyote, we are going to kill him outright." (She couldn't tell Renard this of course because if she said that the Court wanted to kill him, he would never go there.) Man, that'd suck if true! It's a shame she couldn't have said something like "I want you to see my friends" or "I need you to come to the Court but can't say why, please trust me." I see it as much more likely this was the path of least resistance; she knew Renard was infatuated with her so the easiest way to get him to the Court was to let him think she could return those feelings.
|
|
|
Post by strangebloke on Nov 1, 2010 19:52:30 GMT
The age question was because there is a coating on brain cells that are completely in place sometime in the early 20's. That's why children see things in black and white and why teenagers are somewhat extra sensitive. (As soon as the coating starts to build... well its like seeing in color for the first time... it takes a while to adapt to all the new information) If stealing the medicine was wrong, then the man should not have done it and let his wife suffer. (This is not real life, just an exercise, asking rich aunt joan for money isn't part of it) If stealing the medicine was right, he did the right thing by stealing and saving his wife from suffering but he must make restitution to the pharmacist. Using only these two responses, was stealing the medicine right or wrong? It was the right thing to do. It was the illegal thing to do. However, the premise is ridiculous, and it has nothing to do with the topic at all. the fact is that we know nothing about what options Surma had, or even what she was trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 1, 2010 19:52:51 GMT
... (before starting to woo him romantically)... I feel obligated to point out that this, as far as we know, still never happened.
|
|
|
Post by strangebloke on Nov 1, 2010 19:54:06 GMT
In other words, Surma had the choice of tricking him or not tricking him? No shades of gray at all? Is it ever right to trick someone? Coyote and Renard certainly think it is alright...
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 1, 2010 19:55:48 GMT
... (before starting to woo him romantically)... I feel obligated to point out that this, as far as we know, still never happened. We'll call it a point of disagreement.
|
|
|
Post by strangebloke on Nov 1, 2010 19:56:38 GMT
has anyone else noted that Antinomy has yet to respond in rage and denial, as is her normal practice when people hurt her friends/talk about her mom? Perhaps the implications of Anja's statement are not so dire?
also, wait for wednesday. Some of you people get surprised only because you fly off the handle with wild speculation.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 1, 2010 19:58:09 GMT
Well, why don't we discuss Surma, then, instead of this theoretical broke guy who robs pharmacies? Surma had the option of being honest with Rey, but wasn't for whatever reason. By my reckoning, Surma ought to have informed Rey about what was going at the outset (before starting to woo him romantically) on so he could make his own informed decision about his future. Barring that, she should have refused to take part in this scheme. I mean assuming she was working in a professional capacity, she did have the option of turning in her two-weeks-notice and polishing the old resume instead of going through with this. If some other arrangement existed, and/or she were placed under some sort of duress, she should still have at least warned Rey. In other words, Surma had the choice of tricking him or not tricking him? No shades of gray at all? Is it ever right to trick someone? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Hard to make a general statement about it. But that's irrelevant, we are talking about a discrete situation, not some abstract thought exercise.
|
|
|
Post by Elaienar on Nov 1, 2010 19:59:36 GMT
... (before starting to woo him romantically)... I feel obligated to point out that this, as far as we know, still never happened. Right, at this point all we've seen Surma do is imply that he's "stolen her heart". She hasn't even lied to him directly, though Mrs Donlan is pretty clear that she meant for him to think that she loved him.
|
|
|
Post by bnpederson on Nov 1, 2010 20:00:24 GMT
Also, I wonder what the relevence of "we" is in these lines:
Looks to me, seeing as she referred to the Court as its own entity the speech bubble before, the "we" is actually referring to their little clique rather than the Court as a whole. So I suspect Surma isn't doing this under orders as a medium.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 1, 2010 20:01:16 GMT
The age question was because there is a coating on brain cells that are completely in place sometime in the early 20's. That's why children see things in black and white and why teenagers are somewhat extra sensitive. (As soon as the coating starts to build... well its like seeing in color for the first time... it takes a while to adapt to all the new information) If stealing the medicine was wrong, then the man should not have done it and let his wife suffer. (This is not real life, just an exercise, asking rich aunt joan for money isn't part of it) If stealing the medicine was right, he did the right thing by stealing and saving his wife from suffering but he must make restitution to the pharmacist. Using only these two responses, was stealing the medicine right or wrong? It was the right thing to do. It was the illegal thing to do. However, the premise is ridiculous, and it has nothing to do with the topic at all. the fact is that we know nothing about what options Surma had, or even what she was trying to do. I was trying to make the point that, since we don't know what Surma was doing or why, we can't assume she was doing anything wrong since it is possible to do wrong for the right reasons.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 1, 2010 20:03:14 GMT
In other words, Surma had the choice of tricking him or not tricking him? No shades of gray at all? Is it ever right to trick someone? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Hard to make a general statement about it. But that's irrelevant, we are talking about a discrete situation, not some abstract thought exercise. The abstract helps examine the discrete. In Surma's situation, we don't have enough information to decide. That was my point.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 1, 2010 20:04:44 GMT
It was the right thing to do. It was the illegal thing to do. However, the premise is ridiculous, and it has nothing to do with the topic at all. the fact is that we know nothing about what options Surma had, or even what she was trying to do. I was trying to make the point that, since we don't know what Surma was doing or why, we can't assume she was doing anything wrong since it is possible to do wrong for the right reasons. Based on what we do know, it is hard to imagine a plausible scenario where her reasons could justify what she is doing here.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 1, 2010 20:05:50 GMT
Right, at this point all we've seen Surma do is imply that he's "stolen her heart". My view on things differs, not surprisingly. Calling him Reynardine wasn't meant to imply that he had stolen her heart, that's putting the cart before the horse. She said it in response to his making a pervy comment about the nice view. It was only after he asked what the name meant, and she explained it to him, that HE continued his flirtations by turning the phrase in that way. Tenuous to attribute that to Surma that she somehow directed the conversation to end up there. Again, I have to disagree. The only think Anja said on the subject was to hesitantly agree with -Annie's- choice of words (tricked) which, in turn, were placed there by -Coyote's- interpretation of events, which, in turn, are shaped by Coyote being a trickster and therefore prone to view such actions as tricks. Anja never -said- that Surma led Renard to believe something that wasn't true.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 1, 2010 20:07:51 GMT
I was trying to make the point that, since we don't know what Surma was doing or why, we can't assume she was doing anything wrong since it is possible to do wrong for the right reasons. Based on what we do know, it is hard to imagine a plausible scenario where her reasons could justify what she is doing here. Yeah but before today was it plausible to believe Surma would trick Rey?
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 1, 2010 20:09:40 GMT
Based on what we do know, it is hard to imagine a plausible scenario where her reasons could justify what she is doing here. Is that to say that you believe that the scenario I offered, where Surma is doing this to try to save Renard from being killed by the Court, is implausible? When there is no more or less evidence for it than the scenario that she is willingly and spitefully going along with orders from the Court to break his heart and deceive him?
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 1, 2010 20:12:11 GMT
Based on what we do know, it is hard to imagine a plausible scenario where her reasons could justify what she is doing here. Is that to say that you believe that the scenario I offered, where Surma is doing this to try to save Renard from being killed by the Court, is implausible? When there is no more or less evidence for it than the scenario that she is willingly and spitefully going along with orders from the Court to break his heart and deceive him? I believe it is implausible because the court has not been shown to have the ability to send assassins into the forest to kill people at will.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 1, 2010 20:14:09 GMT
Based on Anya's close friendship with Surma, and since Anya raised Kat to be who she is, I'd say there is more evidence that Surma was acting rightfully somehow. We just don't know how yet.
But Tom likes to pull the rug out from under us like this... "oh look, she's evil... *removes the veil* TADA, no she's not!"
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Nov 1, 2010 20:18:09 GMT
Is that to say that you believe that the scenario I offered, where Surma is doing this to try to save Renard from being killed by the Court, is implausible? When there is no more or less evidence for it than the scenario that she is willingly and spitefully going along with orders from the Court to break his heart and deceive him? I believe it is implausible because the court has not been shown to have the ability to send assassins into the forest to kill people at will. Guess we'll have to wait and see just how Ysengrin lost that ear that has the bismuth symbol over it in the Third Treatise.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 1, 2010 20:18:27 GMT
Based on Anya's close friendship with Surma, and since Anya raised Kat to be who she is, I'd say there is more evidence that Surma was acting rightfully somehow. We just don't know how yet. But Tom likes to pull the rug out from under us like this... "oh look, she's evil... *removes the veil* TADA, no she's not!" People can be good most of the time and still sometimes do bad things.
|
|