HIGHLA-L Digest - 7 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-141)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:16:24 -0400
There are 18 messages totalling 817 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Immortal moral choices (9)
2. Fanfic & Morals (6)
3. Highlander in the news
4. Square dancing!
5. jewels in the desert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 02:11:47 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/7/2003 12:06:11 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
Jezebel615@aol.com writes:
> >Dotiran:
> >>nah. the subject matter doesn't fall under the subject of morality.
> >
>
> Actually, if you are a devout, practicing, Southern Baptist, it does.
> Dancing
> is immoral
No, again what we have here is a terminology problem. Dancing is never
immoral. Even the Baptists could not really *mean* that, even if that language is
used. What they are saying is it is against their rules, laws, precepts, code
of conduct, practice, custom, set of preferences, whatever. It is like the
former prohibition in the Catholic church for many years against eating meat on
Friday. It was never immoral to eat meat on Friday. Morality doesn't involve
such minute realities. It was, however, against Church law, hence it could change
. Morality on the other hand involves the central core of what is "right" or
fitting for humankind , of who we are. No law can change it. To be human is
to be part of the objective "truth" and the universal morality undergirding,
built into, humankind. I would not presume to state that all humans at every
point in history or even any of us in this discussion either know or will agree
on what that truth is, but it exists and can become known [eventually] by
reason. [Those relativists who at this point say there is "your truth and my
truth" are so completely missing the point that further discussion would be of no
avail]
The role of religion in all of this is a separate discussion. and only comes
into the picture because many people believe that revelation helps to uncover
the truth. But even if people from different religions differ on the basics of
morality, it only means they have not yet agreed on the common truth. Unless
there are degrees of humanity, humans will share the same morality. Whether
they will ever agree on what it is, is yet another question. Perhaps none of us
should attempt to assert that we know with certainty what is and is not
moral, but our understandings and assertions will not affect that fact of that
common morality's existence anymore than than a man's denial of paternity can
cause his child to cease to exist. . As I once read, "just because the blind man
cannot see, does not mean the sun does not shine."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:43:17 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Nina wrote:
>John--
>> Leah's carttons clearly falls under 'parody' and 'commentary'
>Really? I'd be interested to see that tested.
I would say that it already has been. Starlog magazine printed
some of them.
-Marina.
\\ "And we are scatterlings of Africa on a ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// journey to the stars. Far below we leave || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever dreams of what we were." - Juluka ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za=============|| \\
\\============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
I have adandoned my search for reality and am now looking for a good
fantasy... preferably with a Mountie in it.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:43:18 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Nina (with whom I am actually agreeing) wrote:
>Does morality change when various authorities (religious, legal, or
>whatever) change THEIR official views about what people are bound to do &
>not do? There have been some rather profound changes in expected/required
>conduct, even just during the past 100 years, whether you look at religions
>or legal doctrines. How can that be, if morality is an absolute? Were they
>wrong back then? Or are we wrong now? Where IS the answer to that written
>for all to read?
We probably all think, "they were wrong back then". I mean, how *could*
they (pick any "they") just rape and pillage like that? *Gasp*! But
"they" saw nothing wrong with it.
I have a more modern example, actually. Even 25 years ago in South
Africa, apartheid was considered perfectly moral to the group of
people running the country at the time. (Who thought they had the
God-given right to do that, but let's not get into that.) Now it's
considered terribly immoral and we take great pains to teach the
children how terrible it was (and they don't really "get" it,
because to them it's ancient history, which is maybe a good thing).
People look back *now*, and go, "What were they *thinking*?" but
their attitudes back then painted a very different picture. Of
course, some people can get on their high horse because we *always*
thought it was wrong and immoral, but the fact is that to the
white Afrikaner elite of the '50s, '60s, '70s and early '80s,
apartheid was the way to go. Now they've (mostly) all changed
their tune.
Anyway, my point, I guess, is that even individual people's morals
and ideas of what is right and wrong can change over time, just
like a society's can.
>Also, care to discuss Duncan's religious & moral upbringing, versus his
>attitude toward religion & morality as we saw it by the end of the series?
>Talk about change....
It's funny, but we've never really seen Duncan observe any religion,
have we? We'd assume he's Catholic (or was), but he also hung with a
shaman, assimilated some Japanese and Chinese philosophy, so...
I'd venture to say he probably believes in participating in whatever
rituals are necessary. But whether wecan deduce his religious beliefs
from the show, I don't know. We've seen him visit priests before,
but again, that could just be him fitting into the time period.
- Marina.
\\ "And we are scatterlings of Africa on a ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// journey to the stars. Far below we leave || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever dreams of what we were." - Juluka ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za=============|| \\
\\============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
I have adandoned my search for reality and am now looking for a good
fantasy... preferably with a Mountie in it.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:25:11 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Interesting points all. But if claiming the innate forces that control us,
aren't we also confusing instinct and morality - two important things that
regualte us?
For instance, we are driven to reproduce by something more than just choice,
something not moral but instinctual. However it would be the moral part of
the individual psyche (as such) and/or society's values that requires
consent (and often a very expensive meal ;) ) first?
John
----- Original Message -----
From: <Dotiran@aol.com>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 3:09 AM
Subject: Re: [HL] Immortal moral choices
> In a message dated 7/6/2003 7:03:46 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> diamonique@comcast.net writes:
>
> > Then if what you say is true, who or what made the decision as to what
is
> > and is not moral for all human beings everywhere for all time?
> >
>
> it is inbuilt. part of the "blueprint" Of course if one doesn't believe
> there *is* a blueprint, then no wonder this conversation can go nowhere.
> Have used up my 7 posts for one day :)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:32:47 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
> Dawn--
> > Morality IS set
> > in stone and IS a fundamental aspect of all humans that does NOT change
> for
> > different peoples.
>
> Because YOU say so? Do you have anything at all to back that up?
>
> Really, this & several other statements from you recently make me ask--Are
> you 10 years old? If so, fine, that explains much. If not, why do you
post
> like it? This is a _discussion_ list--discuss any HL-related topic until
> the cows come home. Dropping unsubstantiated fiats here & there like
> unctious cow patties is NOT the same thing.
>
> Nina (getting quote attributions correct is a plus; generally adhering to
> the list's 5 posts per day rule probably gets almost anyone w/in shouting
> distance of whatever heaven they imagine)
> mac.westie@verizon.net
Nina, Dawn's belief-system in morality doesn't seem to be any more absolute
than your stance of fanfic - both subjects in which I agree with some
aspects and disagree with other aspects. This list would seem to be open to
anyone whether they change their minds or not - we just find it more of a
good debate if people back up their belief systems with other than belief
(and there's a religious thread if there ever was one). The catch, always
is, of course that we frequently disagree on some of those beliefs and the
faith/evidence thereof.
The trick in any good debate, of course, is to throw decent questions rather
than insults.
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:47:05 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
----- Original Message -----
From: "MacWestie" <mac.westie@verizon.net>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: [HL] Highlander in the news
> John--
> > I think my poistion on the fanfic can best be explained thus:
> > I'm driving down a fairly empty Texas highway in my car. On the side of
my
> > car is a sign that says *Visit Texas Today! Home of the Dixie Chicks!*
>
> I read the whole thing you did. Twice. And it made zero sense to me.
> Maybe it was the Texas thing.
>
>
> > It's all perspective.
>
> Clarity of expression is also nice. Especially in certain professions.
>
> Nina
> mac.westie@verizon.net
Well, happy to explain in simpler terms if needed. We cater for all.
I'm driving a car that could be described as promoting the State I'm driving
through. The police-officer stops my progression of said promotion by
pulling me over. He pulls me over because I'm technically breaking the law
of that State - albeit it in a minor way - when he could in fact ignore my
slight transgression because a) I'm promoting interest in the State and b)
there are more important things to worry about.
My analogy is simply: Like fanfic, the legal aspect is that he absolutely
CAN act against me and the law might dictate he should, but is the scale of
the action necessary/useful or practical?
It's a legal imperative vs. moral imperative debate which dove-tails nicely
into another thread, doesn't it?
John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 19:26:12 +1000
From: Carmel Macpherson <tunnack@webone.com.au>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Hi all
I don't understand why the discussion keeps on and on about the legalities
when it is obvious that Davis-Panzer own the characters. I certainly
acknowledge that and that fanfiction is unauthorised use of someone else's
property. If asked to cease and desist by the owners, I would cease and
desist because I acknowledge that the owners have that right.
At present however, the owners have made no such request. Indeed, the
owners openly invite fanfiction on their own official site:
http://www.highlander-official.com/
and there you will find a category called: "Highlander Chain
Stories/Fanfiction: The place for fans to collaborate on Highlander-themed
stories."
The analogy I would use is that there is a property in my street, clearly
owned by Mr Kefups. He has a wonderful large front lawn with trees, a
garden and play equipment. I walk in and play in his front garden even
though I know that I have no legal right to do so. I know that Mr Kefups
knows that I am playing there and that he doesn't tell me *not* to do so. So
I continue to play. Indeed, I notice that there is a sign tacked to a tree,
signed by Mr Kefups, telling all that playing in his front garden is
welcome. It doesn't specify that certain forms of play are not allowed,
whilst playing in his garden.
So - if the owners have no problem by what right do certain neighbours keep
insisting that I have no right to play in this garden? I know that I have no
*right*. I acknowledge that. I accept the risks of being charged with
trespassing by the owner. In the meantime, I could be forgiven for
suggesting that my tongue-clucking neighbours go and tend their own garden
since my activities, given Mr Kefups sign, do not appear to be distressing
the actual owner.
If one is going to be distressed and outraged about things, why not be
distressed over activities that actually matter? In this instance, it
appears that Messrs Davis and Panzer are not themselves distressed and are
not inviting anyone to be distressed on their behalves.
As I swing high and low on Mr Kefups' apple tree, I could be forgiven by my
fellow playmates for shouting over the fence to my neighbours that they go
wandering further afield to find an owner who cares.
Kind regards
@ Carmel Macpherson
<<<@{}=================>>>
@ carmel@hldu.org
http://www.hldu.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HLDU6: 29 April - 1 May, 2005. Sydney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:44:40 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 7:47:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
USTADAWN@aol.com writes:
> That is where I strongly disagree with your whole argument. Morality IS
> set
> in stone and IS a fundamental aspect of all humans that does NOT change for
> different peoples.
>
That doesn't seem to be the problem. The problem seems to be the defined
*boundaries* of Morality, as set by a certain group, at a certain time, and
imposed on everyone else.
For example, what was illegal in the US may be legal today according to a
Supreme Court ruling, but a religious group may deem that item "immoral," in
opposition to many others. If that religious group puts a fundamentalist president
into the White House with the express purpose of having laws in this country
revised to fit their idea of "Morality," despite prohibitions against mixing
church and state, then the Morality itself is in the process of being changed.
History and cultural distance are continually redefining what is "immoral."
It was completely moral to have multiple wives in the Middle East, in Biblical
times. If a man tries that in modern Western society, he's a Bigamist, and
he's broken the law, and is considered a louse. But we read about it in the
bible, and don't think ill of the patriarchs.
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 07:59:34 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
"At the hearing to consider Starbucks' motion for a preliminary injunction,
Gold asserted that Dwyer's image did not infringe on the company's copyright,
because it meets the standards of parody. Unlike libel or slander, parody is
protected speech, and presiding judge Maxine Chesney seemed to agree that
Dwyer's image constituted a legitimate parody. In response to questioning by Judge
Chesney, Starbucks' attorney was forced to admit that Dwyer would be within his
First Amendment rights to place the parody logo on a billboard. Finding that
Starbucks was unlikely to prevail on the copyright portion of its lawsuit,
Judge Chesney later ruled that Dwyer was free to display the parody on his
website."
>From court case documented at:
http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:Tc-i0ftwJkIJ:www.cbldf.org/pr/001130-star
bucks.shtml+%22parody+is+protected%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Pursuant to the Copyright Act of 1976, Parody is protected as
"Fair Use." There are four criteria which designate "Fair Use:"
The purpose and character of the use, including whether use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
The nature of the copyrighted work.
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole.
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
But then again, maybe American law is different in Hawaii...
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 09:55:31 EDT
From: Ashton7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
In a message dated 7/7/2003 3:43:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
tmar@sifl.iid.co.za writes:
> I would say that it already has been. Starlog magazine printed
> some of them.
Actually Starlog magazine printed dozens and dozens of them. Especially
during the days when they listed Leah as a member of their staff and, oh, that time
or two they devoted an entire page to nothing but her cartoons.
Annie
"I'm back!" -- Dr. Daniel Jackson
****************
Stargate Solutions: http://www.savedanieljackson.com
Our Stargate Discussion Forum:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/ourstargate/start
Ashton Press: http://ashtonpress.net/
Gateway, A Stargate Slash Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Gateway/join
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:11:02 -0400
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
>>Actually Starlog magazine printed dozens and dozens of them. Especially
during the days when they listed Leah as a member of their staff and, oh, that time
or two they devoted an entire page to nothing but her cartoons.
Annie<<
I only stopped because I got forgetful about sending them out, about ten years back. I guess I'll start sending them out to the editor again. Thanks for the reminder with this thread, everybody.
Amoral Leah
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:25:25 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Square dancing!
Of square-dancing (which is a HL reference because of "Obsession"<eg>):
Dotiran:
>> >>nah. the subject matter doesn't fall under the subject of morality.
Jez:
>> Actually, if you are a devout, practicing, Southern Baptist, it does.
>> Dancing is immoral
Dotiran:
>No, again what we have here is a terminology problem. Dancing is never
>immoral. Even the Baptists could not really *mean* that, even if that
>language is used. What they are saying is it is against their rules, laws, precepts,
>code of conduct, practice, custom, set of preferences, whatever.
No. Sorry. Wrong answer. ( Thanks to Jez for reminding me of the Southern Baptist's position on dancing. I should have remembered, having a number of SB's in the family)(I won't tell you the lengths certain young cousins used to go to to see American Bandstand on TV)
Southern Baptists *say* immoral and they *mean* immoral. They believe that it is an affront to God...a violation of the laws laid down by God...not just to their current code of conduct. People who dance are *immoral* . Period. Full stop.
Dancing may not be immoral to *you*..but you have no basis for telling Southern Baptist that they are using the wrong word or that they misunderstand the concept. They understand morality quite well...they simply have a different set of morals than you subscribe to. Which is what I have been saying all along.
> It is like the former prohibition in the Catholic church for many years against eating
>meat on Friday. It was never immoral to eat meat on Friday. Morality doesn't
>involve such minute realities. It was, however, against Church law, hence it could
>change.
I will agree with this specific example. Eating meat on Friday was not a moral issue.
>Morality on the other hand involves the central core of what is "right"
>or fitting for humankind, of who we are.
Based on ...what? As specified by...whom..or what? What is the basis for your belief? I can cite numerous historical references and religious tracts to bolster my position that morals change over time. What can you cite to support your position that they do not? (Beyond your personal belief that they don't)
>No law can change it.
Laws have nothing to do with morality.<g>
>To be human
>is to be part of the objective "truth" and the universal morality
>undergirding, built into, humankind. I would not presume to state that all humans at
>every point in history or even any of us in this discussion either know or will
>agree on what that truth is, but it exists and can become known [eventually] by
>reason. [Those relativists who at this point say there is "your truth and
>my truth" are so completely missing the point that further discussion would
>be of no avail]
Ok. I see where you're coming from...I think. And...no..there is probably little point of further discussion. Not because we are "missing the point" ..but because the two sides of the debate will never agree on the starting point of the discussion. You believe in an, as yet, undefined "force" that binds all humanity together (whether they know and accept it) and which blueprints some intrinsic code of right and wrong into every human for all time. A Force..a Godhead..a Cosmic DNA Machine..something which has universal presence and shapes each one of us at our very core. *I* believe that humanity is a collection of free-willed individuals who come together (freely or otherwise) to form social groupings with ever-changing morals, mores, religions, laws, codes of conduct, behaviors, etc. and that the only universal tie among us is the number of genes and chromosomes we share.
> But even if people from different religions differ on the
>basics of morality, it only means they have not yet agreed on the common truth.
How nice of you to clarify that for everyone else in the world. And am I correct in believing that the set of morals to which you subscribe is the correct "universal" one?
>As I once read, "just because the
>blind man cannot see, does not mean the sun does not shine."
Except when it doesn't.
The blind man has to take the shining of the sun on faith, or rely on the reporting of others, or use his other powers of perception. He does not intrinsicly "know" that the sun is shining.
Further, the sun is a physical fact..it has physical properties that can be charted and explained. Whether the blind man is taught that the earth circles the sun or that the sun circles the earth, the physical path of the sun remains unchanged.
Show me the *facts* surrounding these universal moral truths ..where are they written? Who authored them? Where and how can they be tested for accuracy and universality? Morals are ideas. They have no weight or measure. They can only be taken on faith. As such, they may or may not truly exist- and they may or may not change - depending on one's belief system. What you seem to be arguing is that there is only One True Belief System (conveniently, yours). That is a proposition that I refuse to accept.
Wendy(Billions and billions of people and only *one* True Faith?)(Scares the sh*t out of me.)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:48:07 -0400
From: Jill Gillham <selkie@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
> > Leah's carttons clearly falls under 'parody' and 'commentary'
>
> Really? I'd be interested to see that tested. I think of parody as
> something _more_ than using other people's characters to state one's
> personal opinions. Part of the problem is that the examples you
> mention--MAD magazine & professional cartoons--have a much broader scope,
> which itself lends legitimacy & if nothing else minimizes the abuse of the
> entity/ies stolen/borrowed from.
Well St. Martin's Press seems to think that they had every legal right to publish an unauthorized seven book series of Star Trek parodies called "Star Wreck". I'll go with the idea that the St. Martin's lawyers know what they're doing.
Jill
selkie@cox.net
http://members.cox.net/selkie/
"Carpe carp!"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:22:33 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Annie wrote:
>Actually Starlog magazine printed dozens and dozens of them. Especially
>during the days when they listed Leah as a member of their staff and, oh,
>that time or two they devoted an entire page to nothing but her cartoons.
I remember my favourite was the one of Wesley looking at his hairline
in a horrified manner and Picard saying, "Wesley, my boy, there's
something your mother and I haven't told you..." Hee hee. (Now
*that* was a common fanfic topic. I don't think I ever wrote a
Picard/Crusher story that didn't refer to it.)
- Marina.
\\ "And we are scatterlings of Africa on a ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// journey to the stars. Far below we leave || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever dreams of what we were." - Juluka ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za=============|| \\
\\============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
I have adandoned my search for reality and am now looking for a good
fantasy... preferably with a Mountie in it.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:22:28 -0400
From: L Cameron-Norfleet <cgliser@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Me:
> >I do not agree with Mme. Weezul (as she challenges John to essay
>>questions) when it comes to the assumption that certain actions are
>>acceptable according to the cultural mores of the times. Rape, for
>>example, will ALWAYS be wrong in my book, no matter the time or
>>place. There are, in my book, actions that aren't ever
> >acceptable--though my list is probably shorter and greyer than most.
Wendy:
>The question is not whether you, today, look back (or ahead) and
>say "Rape is wrong". <snip> That has no effect, however, on what the
>people living XXX number of years ago in some different part of the
>world might have believed just as fervently.
This is true. Though, I do wonder what the women who lived in those
societies where rape was acceptable behavior thought of it--whether
they agreed that it was okay simply because the men doing it to them
did.
>They*, however, were actually living the events and saw the issue
>differently. Their religion may have set different standards of
>morality than yours. Unless we want to say "their religion was
>wrong" (something I am unwilling to say about anyone else's
>religion) we have to accept that the morals of their time may have
>condoned or encouraged behavior that the morals of our time find
>abhorrent.
But, again, I have to wonder if ALL members of feudal England thought
it was okay for the Lord to rape their wives. Or if the wives
thought it was okay to be raped. Two wrongs, three wrong, five
thousand wrongs do not necessarily make it right.
While I am enough of an Anthropology student to know all about
cultural and moral relativism, I also believe that there are certain
"truths" of human nature that transcend culture and religion both.
You can see these things in the bits of various religions that are
the same, regardless of the creed in question. Depending on how one
looks at religion (as either a human based structure or a divine
one), it can be argued that these bits of tenet (morals?) are, in
fact, somehow universal to mankind--whether internally or externally.
Yeah. Okay. Not ALL cultures think it's bad to kill someone. Some
even condone it in certain circumstances. But I believe that those
circumstances are always to "right" a given "wrong" than has been
done. That is, some cultures allow a member of your family to seek
revenge upon the man who killed you--their actions are just but HIS
are not. And back in the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the Stone Age, it
wasn't ever just fine and dandy to go kill your neighbor because you
were in a bad mood. *Something* in human nature suggests to us what
is "right" behavior and what is "wrong" behavior and I think that
this elusive something is the base of religion and the moral
structures that can grow from it.
Me:
>I'm *still* having trouble reconciling Broze Age Methos and Adam
> >Pierson, though. Talk about turning cultural relativism and morality
>>on its ear...
Wendy:
>Bronze Age Methos was behaving badly by his own Age's standards. I
>don't see why it is hard to reconcile the idea that a man might be a
>raping, pillaging bastard in 2000 BC and a mildly amusing lay-about
>in 2000 AD. He got over it. He grew up. He moved on with the times.
>I don't even see why it should be hard to like a man in 2000 AD who
>had been a very bad man in 2000BC. It was 4000 years ago.
Cassandra aside, for the moment...I'm afraid I can't draw the nice
crisp lines that you do when it comes to holding Methos accountable
(or not) for his past actions. You know I love the guy to pieces.
But those episodes really changed my views about him. I still love
him in a non-shoulder-punching fictional character sort of way, of
course. But I can't say that it's the same sort of emotion as it was
pre Horseman/ Rev 6:8.
Wendy:
> I don't want my actions of 30 years ago held against me<g> I can't
>imagine holding >something that happened 4 millennia ago against
>someone.( Unless one was actually >there.)
I wish I could explain it. You'd think I would be able to by
now...but all I can come up with is that my views on his
accountability are tied to his immortality, somehow. I am more
likely to forgive you for bad behavior in your teens than I am to
forgive him the same. Partly, I'm sure, because you weren't raping
and pillaging your way across the Mid-West.
If I found out that a man I know had, in fact, been a serial rapist
30 years ago, I doubt I would feel the same about him as I did before
the knowledge came to me. Some things are just not easily dismissed.
Liser
--
Lisa Cameron-Norfleet ** cgliser@earthlink.net
--
The difference between truth and fiction: fiction has to make sense
--Mark Twain
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 12:46:54 -0400
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Liser pointed out:
>>This is true. Though, I do wonder what the women who lived in those societies where rape was acceptable behavior thought of it--whether they agreed that it was okay simply because the men doing it to them did."
As an act of violence, rather than sex, one that could often end in death of the victim by one means or another, we have to simply categorize this along with acts like murder, in the context of this debate.
If murder (by the modern definition) is 'acceptable' and moral by ancient or third-world culture "Morality," then what's happened to Morality since? There are many instances where killing others was deemed acceptible and within the bounds of Morality in the Bible, for example, but we wouldn't dream of stomaching them today. Same goes for slavery.
This was one of my problems with the arguments of those fans who dismiss the ancient acts of rape and murder that Methos and his Horsemen performed on Cassandra and her village. Methos (and those fans) argue "The times were different. I was different." That's a valid excuse for why it happened AT THE TIME. But as Methos and Cassandra have both managed to survive the unimaginably long 30 Centuries since that time when things were different, what does he owe her now? How much forgiveness is he entitled to, when by the Middle Eastern standards of 3000 years ago, he was, by his own admission, a criminal? How can anyone ask Cassandra to forget about it, when the moral issues in question were rape, abduction, torture, enslavement and murder?
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:02:25 EDT
From: Jezebel Davis <Jezebel615@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 07/06/2003 11:12:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Dotiran@aol.com writes:
> No, again what we have here is a terminology problem. Dancing is never
> immoral. Even the Baptists could not really *mean* that,
Actually, *Even the Baptists" could - and DO - really mean that. I was
born and raised Catholic, and transplanted to the buckle of the Southern Bible
belt. My daughter married a Southern Baptist young man who comes from a family
with several Southern Baptist 'preachers' and ministers. The issue of dancing
and liquor at the wedding reception was a hot topic. Trust me, the topic of
dancing is not taken lightly. And I'm not talking about some little backwater
southern town - I live in Atlanta, Ga.....
You don't need to correct MY interpretaion of the morality of dancing,
square or otherwise - you just need to take on the Southern Baptist Convention.
Good Luck!
By the way...to bring in the ObHL reference (and tie in square dancing as
an immoral activity, which, in a nutshell is why Southern Baptists are
anti-dancing) , one of the best ####### in HL was in a FlashBack. Duncan square
dancing with a married woman - and it immediately leads to headboard rattlin'!
I'm not a philosopher so I'm not going to post lofty ideals of what
morals really are (??immutable??), vs what they should be (a unversal truth?).
Someone already posted the definition of morals, and you felt the word they were
really looking for is 'mores'. My sociology classes were eons ago, but I do
remember that morals/mores usually tied in to social and group behavior. It is
nearly impossible to separate them, and they change with the prevailing
attitudes of the majority - conflict results when minority groups ascribe to a
differing morals/mores.
Whole text books, college courses, and religions have been founded on this
topic. Highlander's Talmudic discussions wouldn't have been so interesting if
everyone saw the world of immortals through the same social or religious lens.
Jez
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 18:14:27 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: jewels in the desert
> If they were very old jewels belonging to a long dead person and you just
found
> them in the desert there would still be laws telling you what to do with
them
> and I'm pretty sure they say such items belong to the government who owns
the
> desert. But I'm not sure governments saying they own everything their
geography
> happens to cover is morally right if I had to prove it with logic, so
*shrugs*
Nah, there's a complicated set of rules that cover found
treasure - something about how it was hidden, if it was
hidden, who it was probably hidden by - under certain
circumstances it may be "finders keepers" and other
circumstances it has to be handed over to the authorities
(but generally you have to hand it over so that the authorities
can decide whether or not it's "treasure trove" or not)
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 7 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-141)
***************************************************************