Gods help us...

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I said that sometimes following 'the law' was not the ethical thing to do

You said that breaking an oath was sometimes the right thing to do. That is not simply a matter of law, Stan. It is a matter of ethics and morality. If a society ever condones oath-breaking, they have lost their moral compass, no matter how many show up in church on Sunday.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

You said that breaking an oath was sometimes the right thing to do.

No, I didn't. You are the one saying the presidential oath means that 'defending the constitution' equates to obeying every judicial interpretations of it and deferring to the courts on every possible decision. I believe just the opposite of that. Sometimes 'defending the constitution' means defending it from court interpretations. Thats the role of the executive branch. Thats the reason the office exists. Thats why the oath exists. If President Bush believed that torturing captured terrorist was the way to defend the country, hence the constitution, his oath obligated him to do that. That was the ethical thing to do. They were bad guys, he is a good guy - cylons or no cylons.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I believe just the opposite of that. Sometimes 'defending the constitution' means defending it from court interpretations.

You are the only one dragging court interpretations into this. It's quite clear to anyone who looks at what the men I cited did was unconstitutional. To say that Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, or locked up the legislature of a state in order to keep them from voting the way he didn't want them to has anything to do with the Supreme Court is, at best, a weak red herring. At worst, one would suspect you know you have a losing argument and are trying hard to find wiggle room. Seems to me the problem is, you so need to protect your hero from charges that he violated the Bill of Rights by wiretapping American citizens without a court order that you now are in the position of saying that sometimes it's necessary to destroy the constitution in order to save it - which is, of course, exactly what FDR, and Obama claimed. And Napolean. DeGaulle at least was honest. Rather than take an oath he couldn't keep, he tore up the old constitution and ordered a new one written.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Rob Graham]

i agree that BSG has degenerated into a tale of moral relativism carried to the absurd extreme. When there are "no Good Guys and no Bad Guys" then there is no moral compass whatsoever, and any atrocity can be justified by an appeal to "victimology". BSG has become, as Stan points out, an attempt to justify an absurdly flawed world view in which there is no right or wrong, just shades of victimization. A dark, sad tale indeed.

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

there is no right or wrong, just shades of victimization

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with that phrase. Not even Starbuck is interesting any more.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Rob Graham]

In a way, I'm glad the last show is tomorrow.

[Ilion]

Stan Shannon wrote:

"So we work very hard to get to a place where we never really wanted the audience to be comfortable with the idea that the Cylons could be redeemed ... and likewise, humanity."

Perhaps it's not such a surprise that persons who appear not to be able to think well enough to come up with a coherent sentence might imagine that it really is possible to blur the distinction between 'good' and 'evil.'

[Ilion]

:thumbsup:

[Ilion]

Rob Graham wrote:

i agree that BSG has degenerated into a tale of moral relativism carried to the absurd extreme. When there are "no Good Guys and no Bad Guys" then there is no moral compass whatsoever, and any atrocity can be justified by an appeal to "victimology". BSG has become, as Stan points out, an attempt to justify an absurdly flawed world view in which there is no right or wrong, just shades of victimization. A dark, sad tale indeed.

The "absurd extreme" is there from the beginning; it is implicit in the premises of moral relativism.

[Rob Graham]

I don't think they're trying to "blur the distinction between good and evil", I think they are denying that there is a distinction; asserting that it is merely a matter of point of view.

[Ilion]

Well, of course, when one attempts to "blur the distinction between good and evil", one is merely denying that there is a real/objective difference in the first place. (Sheesh! Consider who you're talking to.) But "blurring the distinction" is the phrase quoted in the OP.

[Rob Graham]

Well, what might one expect from employees of an NBC division that is changing its name from SciFi to SyFy (which it turns out is a polish name for a venereal disease) because they can CopyRight the new name and "Brand" it. It's already being referred to as the VD Channel.

[Ilion]

:laugh:

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

BSG has become, as Stan points out, an attempt to justify an absurdly flawed world view in which there is no right or wrong, just shades of victimization. A dark, sad tale indeed.

A follow up - NPR today had a celebration of BSG - mentioning in passing the battle scenes but gushing over the "morality" of the show. Someone named McHale who works for the "E" channel was apprently the only TV critic (I use the word loosely) they could find to rave about it. I suspect that once you become the favorite SF show of NPR, you aren't likely to appeal much to you or me.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

To say that Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, or locked up the legislature of a state in order to keep them from voting the way he didn't want them to has anything to do with the Supreme Court is, at best, a weak red herring.

I'll give you that point. But I maintain that it was still the ethical thing to do. Lincoln was not trying to acquire some kind of dictatorial control of the country for his own gain, he was trying to guide it through a period of extreme trauma. And to have not prosecuted a war that promised to end slavery itself out of concern for habeus corpus for only free people would have been true moral relativism. He did the right thing (and that is a damned hard thing to say for a good southern boy like me).

Oakman wrote:

Seems to me the problem is, you so need to protect your hero from charges that he violated the Bill of Rights by wiretapping American citizens without a court order that you now are in the position of saying that sometimes it's necessary to destroy the constitution in order to save it

But I won't give you that point. The notion that we are endowed by our creator with an unalianble right to put our voices into a copper wire is a court based interpretaion of the first amendment. The president has every right to ignore it to defend the nation, and the constitution, from attack. It was the ethical thing to do. To let people die so that you can order pizza without being spied on is, again, moral relativism of the highest order. As a former telephone technician, I can assure you your telephone calls are not private, and cannot be.

Oakman wrote:

which is, of course, exactly what FDR, and Obama claimed.

Except that they were (are) actively trying to change the constitution in order to change the country for their own political purposes. That isn't the same thing at all. Lincoln and Bush's motives were not for their own personal or political gain.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Stan Shannon]

Thats an excellent way to phrase it. But the issue really goes far beyond that. This speaks to an overt collaboration between the political community and the artistic community to formulate and promote a particular world view. It is a conspiracy and you don't need a tin foil hat to appreciate it.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Lincoln and Bush's motives were not for their own personal or political gain.

I doubt that FDR thought he would personally gain anything from being President - he had a vision for this country, as did Jefferson, and lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt. Each of them was/is as convinced of their righteousness as you are. And convinced that they needed to subvert the Constitution in order to protect it. As you say you would. Believe me, most great villans are not Snively Whiplash out to tie Little Nell to the traintracks - they are men with great visions of what the world could be and what must be done to drag it to its destiny. It doesn't mean they are right or that one should cut them slack or anything of the sort, but it's never wise to underestimate the opposition.

Stan Shannon wrote:

As a former telephone technician, I can assure you your telephone calls are not private, and cannot be

There is a rather significant difference between secret and private. When the government listens in for the express purpose of gathering evidence against you they are breaking the rules we live by. When Sally Throckmorton listens to some call passing through her switchboard that's relatively unthreatening to the basic liberties of Americans. You don't seem to get that wiretapping without a warrant is a crime. There are laws against it and if we were still of nation of laws, it would be as illegal for the FBI to violate them as it would be for anyone else. There are specific methods for getting phonetaps authorised, even ex-post facto. Breaking them is illegal; it is a subversion of the law of the land; and it breeds little other than increasing mistrust of the governors by the governed. In short, it is part and parcel of the attitude displayed this year by the producers of BSG. There are no absolutes, no right and wrong - just opinions and situations.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

It is a conspiracy and you don't need a tin foil hat to appreciate it

Why don't you take yours off to check that out?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[RichardM1]

John, which wire tapping are you talking about? Are you talking about tapping international IP packets that happened to come through the US at some point? Are you talking about tapping a number, in another country, that belonged to a known or believed ter, and a US citizen called that number? Are you talking about targeted taps of numbers known to belong to US citizens w/o an warrant as a general policy? Are you talking about FISA taps were they did not wait for a warrant? I'm asking to find out, I apologize if the ordering or wording of the questions seems leading.

Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.

[Oakman]

Any wiretapping done by the government, of citizens of the U.S. without a warrant, is illegal. Since the president does not have the power to suspend or ignore laws because they are inconvenient, doing it under his authority is illegal and unconstitutional.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface