who are the real villains here ???

**DONOTDELETE** · Nov 23, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jade Jaguar:
Dark Lord, it was really Kosh and the Vorlons who, at Sheridan's behest, changed the rules of engagement by attacking in support of the Alliance, not Sheridan's attack on Z'Ha'Dum, which came later. And of course, Kosh was killed for that infraction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, if you recall... it was SHERIDEN who asked the Vorlons to fight for them. Remember? Interludes and examinations? Kosh was the one who said no, but Sheriden pressed the issue until he agreed. Sheriden got the Vorlons to break the rules. Kosh ALSO told him not to goto z'ha'dum basically but he went anyway and blew up a good chunk of it. Breaking the rules of engagement. FORCING the Vorlons to back up Sheridens play, Ulkesh says he opened an unexpected door which is why they had to enter into it all. This is confirmed in ITF when the Vorlons state he is the one who got them to do this. Or are you saying attacking homeworlds is part of the game?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The world is NOT flat. Good and evil are not just a point of view. If armed people broke into your house, tortured and killed your family, and left with the contents, are you saying that wouldn't be evil just because it worked for them? I don't think so. Certainly there are grey areas, but if beings in possession of their faculties, acting of their own volition, do extremely harmful things for purely selfish reasons to innocent people, that is evil. I think Angel Summers' analysis is rather apt, especially in view of the behavior of the Shadows and the Vorlons when Sheridan exposes them, as they immediately act like frightened children themselves. I am not a Buddhist like Angel, and I don't believe that desire is intrinsically wrong, or dangerous, but I recognize that desire is often, if not always, the motivation behind evil acts, and I think Angel does pinpoint the moment the Shadows became unequivocally evil. Before that, although I think their means were very bad, and unjustifiable,infact evil, it could be argued that their motivations, to strengthen the younger races, were good. Good and bad, though sometimes murky, are easier to tell than evil. At exactly what point does someone/thing cross the line from bad to evil? That can be tricky. For me, the Shadows crossed it just by deliberately fomenting wars. And the Vorlons, who seemed to be the good guys, definitely did evil by destroying whole planets to eliminate the Shadows' influence, regardless of any innocent people who might be hurt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it is round... which is why things are NOT easy to define. As Sheriden put it, like trying to stack marbles into a corner.

That depends AGAIN, doesn't it? That was actually DONE many times in history, but some families WISHED it so. Such as religious having someone born who they think is evil, so the religious would come and burn them for their evil. THAT was considered good back then! It isn't now because society has changed as has the definition. To an alien race who has a society based on this, it is GOOD... but to us it is EVIL. Maybe they think of death as an adventure and those choosen to die are the worthy and best of their race. I however am not arrogant to believe either is good or evil because such things rely totally on perspective.

Hitler is considered evil but the more often missed name of Stalin isn't usually, even though he is responsible for more death. God is considered good yet he wiped out the world... more than Stalin OR Hitler. Why so different? Because it depends on perspective again.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. The Vorlons thought this, and when stacking the life of billions against that of countless trillions... they choose the former to save the latter. You consider that evil, but then people would think of them as evil for doing NOTHING to save them. So it's lose lose, they choose to lose saving the most amount of people. Because getting rid of the shadows means no more death on galactic scales EVERY thousand years, which is a helluva lot... would have to go into shorthand scientific notation to count them all.

------------------
Marc Cosgrove

"From chaos, order came. As was inevitable." -Summoning light

AngelSummers · Nov 24, 2001

Your complexities, your thinking of plots within plots is so damn bloody confusing!!! Are you saying you blame Sheridan for the Vorlons using massive Planetkillers in the first place? That Sheridan broke the rulz? Sheridan didn't care shit about the rulz because he didn't know the "grand scheme of things" then. Kosh was motivated out of compassion and the fact that the alliance would be dissolved unless he did something. To pt it simply, KOSH broke the rules. He knew he would be sacrificed and accepted the consequneces. Ulkesh has shown that Kosh is not typical of his race. Lyta emphasized that Kosh was the only one who really cared for the younger races. Don't tell me that the Vorlons were FORCED to take action. My foot OK. Even Sheridan's death wasn't a determinant in the Vorlons and Shadows using their super weapons. It was themselves attempting to eradicate each others philosophy by killing each others "Lab rats" to quote Jade Jaguar.

Open your eyes man. Only losers blame others for their actions and try to avoid the consequences. that's one of the reasons Sheridan booted them out. Sheridan with the help of Delenn, finally proved BOTH the Vorlons and Shadows wrong and irresponsible. Their time was over. They could have entered the intergalactic scene peacefully but noooooooo. They had to manipulate everybody or stir up the pot.

I don't know how you read the B5 wars compendium because I'm still wondering what the other First Ones have to do with the Shadows Wars apart from helping Sinclair in the past before. They had nothing to do with the Shadow and Vorlon bickering and now you want to bring them into the argument?

You must try to simplify the situation. Not think plot within the plots. Yes, most of the time we havve to think like that but scientists have a thinking Occarzam's razor which basically means, the simplest thinking may be the best solution.

------------------
May the light of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha protect you.

May you all be well and happy, free from suffering, free from sickness.

**DONOTDELETE** · Nov 24, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by AngelSummers:
Your complexities, your thinking of plots within plots is so damn bloody confusing!!! Are you saying you blame Sheridan for the Vorlons using massive Planetkillers in the first place? That Sheridan broke the rulz? Sheridan didn't care shit about the rulz because he didn't know the "grand scheme of things" then. Kosh was motivated out of compassion and the fact that the alliance would be dissolved unless he did something. To pt it simply, KOSH broke the rules. He knew he would be sacrificed and accepted the consequneces. Ulkesh has shown that Kosh is not typical of his race. Lyta emphasized that Kosh was the only one who really cared for the younger races. Don't tell me that the Vorlons were FORCED to take action. My foot OK. Even Sheridan's death wasn't a determinant in the Vorlons and Shadows using their super weapons. It was themselves attempting to eradicate each others philosophy by killing each others "Lab rats" to quote Jade Jaguar.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's life. No I blame Sheriden for being a hypocrite, not for blowing up planets. But then again, hitler was blamed for the deaths of the jews even though he didn't directly do it either... he was just the cause (as was sheriden). But that's why I say evil and good are based on perspective, if Hitler won then people would look at Hitler like Sheriden. I think highly of Sheriden, I think low of Hitler... but could I say I would think low of Hitler if he won? I'd be lying if I said yes, because I'd be raised and taught he was good, Jews were evil... yadda yadda and I do not know whether I'd believe it or not. For example, I don't believe in a God and the one that is descrbed in the bible I think low of, like a petty child full of hate but I am in the minority in that thinking.

Sheriden not caring and being ignorent of the rules is irrelevant, do you think a Judge would care if someone said that about a charge of murder? Kosh broke the rules at SHERIDEN's request, a plee for help. And who was he to not help a dying man simply because a rule says he can't? You call that evil, I call it good... different perspectives obviously. Of course they were forced after Z'Ha'Dum, he BLEW up a major shadow city and Sheriden was fighting FOR the Vorlons at the time! That makes it THEIR responsability like a child hitting another child, the parent of the child is the one who has to punish theirs (unless in defense such as Sheriden) and apologise to/punish the other. The Vorlons were wiping out every influence of the shadows leading onto direct conflict (think snowball on a mountain) to wipe out the shadows forever, ending it once and for all. A quote from Sheriden after the war - "If we do nothing, their blood will be on our hands.... is that what you want?" The hypocrisy continues, only difference is scale.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Open your eyes man. Only losers blame others for their actions and try to avoid the consequences. that's one of the reasons Sheridan booted them out. Sheridan with the help of Delenn, finally proved BOTH the Vorlons and Shadows wrong and irresponsible. Their time was over. They could have entered the intergalactic scene peacefully but noooooooo. They had to manipulate everybody or stir up the pot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, losers take the blame... winners define who the losers are. Sheriden won, so he was not responable for the deaths of billions even though he WAS the cause (this is fact, deny it all you want but it was stated why the Vorlons did it). Hitler lost, so he WAS responsable for millions of deaths as he was the cause. History is written by the winners. Sheriden was a hypocrite, he is willing to kill for the greater number of lives but judge the Vorlons as evil when they do the same... proven by his OWN words. No crap their time was over, the whole thing is a game to them... it was never serious... if it was the galaxy would be gone in no time, simple as that. It is a method of teaching and the best lesson is action not words. Which is what the Triad taught them using EXACTLY the same methods.

Or how about America? How many civilians were killed by America when bombing Hiroshima? Was it just, was it fair, was it good? History says yes, killing 40,000(?) saved countless millions from dying just like the Vorlons killing billions would save countless trillions. America is good, Vorlons are bad, America won, Vorlons lost (like the Minbari lost against EA). Such parallels are littered through history.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I don't know how you read the B5 wars compendium because I'm still wondering what the other First Ones have to do with the Shadows Wars apart from helping Sinclair in the past before. They had nothing to do with the Shadow and Vorlon bickering and now you want to bring them into the argument?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not reading that, I'm reading wars of the ancients aupplement, a SEPERATE book dedicated to the first ones and everything within. The Triad taught the younger races (shadows, Vorlons etc.) by manifesting ships of order, chaos and neutrality... which would go to war. And suddenly millions of years later, the next generation are being taught using order, chaos and neutrality. Starting to see the big picture? Suddenly after the war they have realised how to stand on their own and work together, just as the first ones did from the Triad lessons. What an amazing coincidence.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You must try to simplify the situation. Not think plot within the plots. Yes, most of the time we havve to think like that but scientists have a thinking Occarzam's razor which basically means, the simplest thinking may be the best solution.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simplfying a complicated subject isn't a good idea. ESPECIALLY when it involves species that can ONLY think in complicated manners that cannot be explained to younger races so they end up saying cryptic messages. The Shadow name alone is ten thousand letters! And the simplest explanation is what I've given you, I don't even want to think about the complicated version. But at it's most basic - Loriens race taught Triad > Triad taught first ones > first ones taught younger races > younger races teach even younger races and so on. Have to use actions because you cannot explain a concept to an ant, you have to SHOW them... they won't understand it but they'll learn what they're given. May sound contradictive but think how Zathras didn't understand an explanation but was still able to follow it through.

------------------
Marc Cosgrove

"From chaos, order came. As was inevitable." -Summoning light

AngelSummers · Nov 24, 2001

Dark Lord, I admit I have completely lost your perspective. You have added too many variables from the Triad which few B5 fans know about to Hirosima bombing.

Bloody hell think like a normal person for once!!! I can't make head or tail of what you're saying.

Here's a summary of what I've said.

Good: Shadows and Vorlons bring up the younger races. Younger races first priority.

Bad: Shadows and Vorlons try to convert or destroy each other's teachings for the sake of proving the other wrong. Younger races came second.

There, simple as that. Can you put your plots within plots mind and come up with a better explanation? Especially for an "immature 19 year old" like me?

can't even define losers without bringing fucking complexities in.

It is precisely this type of thinking that has gotten the world into a terrible mess today. Politics politics politics. It is time to return to the simple ways of life without eradicating the good parts.

Two words. Well, four actually.

[/b]THINK SIMPLE AND DIRECT!!!!!!

------------------
May the light of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha protect you.

May you all be well and happy, free from suffering, free from sickness.

[This message has been edited by AngelSummers (edited November 24, 2001).]

AngelSummers · Nov 24, 2001

And another thing. How dare you call Sheridan a hypocrite?! I may not like him as much as I used to in season 5 after he became President but the guy was parsecs better than any known politician today. Comparing Hitler and Sheridan? Your analysis is flawed in a way that even I can't explain.

You really are the kind of guy who would like to give an excuse to forgive even the most clear cut evils don't you?

I don't know what you're reading man. For myself I rather accept on-screen evidence rather than AOG. Even if it is sanctioned by JMS himself. Hell, George Lucas hands out cannonicity like pancakes.

------------------
May the light of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha protect you.

May you all be well and happy, free from suffering, free from sickness.

**DONOTDELETE** · Nov 24, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by AngelSummers:
Dark Lord, I admit I have completely lost your perspective. You have added too many variables from the Triad which few B5 fans know about to Hirosima bombing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's pretty simple. Triad teach vorlons and shadows to get along using war as a method, war caused by three factions (order, neautrality and chaos). So the Vorlons and shadows in turn teach the same thing using the same methods to teach the younger races. The methods they employ are destructive but ultimately benefiting the galaxy for billions of years.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Bloody hell think like a normal person for once!!! I can't make head or tail of what you're saying.

Here's a summary of what I've said.

Good: Shadows and Vorlons bring up the younger races. Younger races first priority.

Bad: Shadows and Vorlons try to convert or destroy each other's teachings for the sake of proving the other wrong. Younger races came second.

There, simple as that. Can you put your plots within plots mind and come up with a better explanation? Especially for an "immature 19 year old" like me?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I thought it was pretty simple but mmkay.

Good: There is no good, good is defined by our perspective... what is good for one man is evil to another.

Bad: See good.

That what you wanted?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>can't even define losers without bringing fucking complexities in.

It is precisely this type of thinking that has gotten the world into a terrible mess today. Politics politics politics. It is time to return to the simple ways of life without eradicating the good parts.

Two words. Well, four actually.

THINK SIMPLE AND DIRECT!!!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it isn't that type of thinking that holds the world back so much. Everyone is so concerned about what is good or bad that they don't realise that they're subjective, which means they can NEVER mean the same thing all the time. Simple ideas led to the dark ages.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And another thing. How dare you call Sheridan a hypocrite?! I may not like him as much as I used to in season 5 after he became President but the guy was parsecs better than any known politician today. Comparing Hitler and Sheridan? Your analysis is flawed in a way that even I can't explain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok here it is put simply. Sheriden judges Vorlons as being wrong when they kill the few to save the many, when Sheriden caused it, and has done so before and afterwards. When he blew up the shadow city, he blew up innocents FORCED to work for the shadows as well... just like corrianas 6. And afterwards he basically states they can't standby and let innocents die so they have to do something, no matter what which starts the EA civil war. So he does the SAME things as the Vorlons on a smaller scale, and in fact causes those things yet judges others who do this as BAD. THIS is hypocrisy, that simple. And I NEVER said he was bad, you think way too much in these terms... I think of him as a good man who was also a hypocrite.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You really are the kind of guy who would like to give an excuse to forgive even the most clear cut evils don't you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eh?? Where did I say that? I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in saying Vorlons are bad for doing what was stated when people are overlooking that Sheriden did the SAME thing. I think BOTH of them are good, so I am not a hypocrite when saying I like Sheriden... because I believe his reasons were justified for killing innocents to save more innocents. I believe in "The needs of the many outweigh the fe or the one" very much. Only difference to the Vorlons is the scale.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I don't know what you're reading man. For myself I rather accept on-screen evidence rather than AOG. Even if it is sanctioned by JMS himself. Hell, George Lucas hands out cannonicity like pancakes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JMS doesn't however and it's his show, also AOG is used by other races as a source to write for the show when JMS can't answer directly. Pretty obviously it's canon. On-screen evidence doesn't always mean what we see. For example we could learn Sheriden is an andriod simulant, we would never know from visuals. Forgive the obvious exaggeration but this kinda stuff has happened, if you have read the technomage trilogy you'd understand what I mean.

------------------
Marc Cosgrove

"From chaos, order came. As was inevitable." -Summoning light

**DONOTDELETE** · Nov 24, 2001

Dark Lord:

You have often mentioned "the rules". I hope that you remember this -- there are no rules in the universe, except the ones we create for ourselves. By your definition, everyone (including me and you) would be utter hypocrites. Because we create rules for ourselves and then change them, beacuse we doubt our ideas and reconsider. Because we choose.

Is reconsideration hypocrisy? Is subjectivity hypocrisy? Consider what would happen if we would all start following set rules (no matter if our own or external). It would be the death of sentient life. A computer follows rules. Sentient beings think and consider, using rules only when it makes life easier. They can doubt and ignore the rules if needed.

Kosh was not bound by any rules. Neither were the Vorlons or Shadows in general. Neither was anyone else. They were not "forced" to do anything. They chose to do what they did -- and often chose wrongly. None had the right to set rules, none was required to follow.

But they had the right to (dis)agree, to do what they considered right. Some just considered it more openly, trying to understand others. Some had become fixed in their ways and refused to admit that the primitive "younger races" were living sentient beings -- just like the First Ones. Not better or worse, simply more short-lived.

----

Compare the Shadow city with Coriana 6. Sheridan was not capable of fighting the Shadows without destroying himself and many others. He chose to do it -- because he had no other way. But the Vorlons had another way. Their fleet was powerful and numerous enough to destroy *individual* Shadow ships and installations on Coriana -- not the whole damn planet.

----

I partly agree that good and evil depend on perspective. But not in the way you said. Deciding whether something is good or evil requires putting yourself into another person's perspective. After that the decision is simple -- evil is what you don't wish done to yourself. The younger races did not wish themselves manipulated or provoked into wars. Hence the Shadows and Vorlons were committing acts of evil no matter what they believed.

----

Who was less evil, Stalin or Hitler? Are all means justified? My answer: all means are not justified. Both were evil. They are difficult to compare. Stalin may have caused more damage than Hitler, but the damage took more time and was less intensive. Consider it this way - if Hitler would have commanded the resources of the USSR, the result would have been far worse. The allies chose to support Stalin because Hitler was the one who attacked, the one whose victory would have been worse.

You mentioned something about history being written by winners. You are wrong. Just like everything else, winners are temporary. Once they are gone, objectivity will be gradually restored. History must not decide who was evil or not. History is not for judging, only for learning about the human nature -- so we can limit our subjectivity and the consequences of our mistakes.

[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited November 24, 2001).]

**DONOTDELETE** · Nov 24, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You have often mentioned "the rules". I hope that you remember this -- there are no rules in the universe, except the ones we create for ourselves. By your definition, everyone (including me and you) would be utter hypocrites. Because we create rules for ourselves and then change them, beacuse we doubt our ideas and reconsider. Because we choose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally ignoring science which are the rules to the universe and how it operates. No, by my defintion hypocrisy is when you say something like "don't cross that road" to someone else then crosses that road themselves. It is not

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Is reconsideration hypocrisy? Is subjectivity hypocrisy? Consider what would happen if we would all start following set rules (no matter if our own or external). It would be the death of sentient life. A computer follows rules. Sentient beings think and consider, using rules only when it makes life easier. They can doubt and ignore the rules if needed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No but twisting my words to mean what you want them to is rude. I never said that, I said Sheriden was a hypocrite because he has the same rules as Vorlons but judges them as bad when they abide by them. See the dictionary if you wish... but he is a hypocrite. Ignoring the point and going onto completely unrelated examples that are not the definition of what hypocrisy is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Kosh was not bound by any rules. Neither were the Vorlons or Shadows in general. Neither was anyone else. They were not "forced" to do anything. They chose to do what they did -- and often chose wrongly. None had the right to set rules, none was required to follow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erm, yes he was! Erm... YES they WERE! They made and abided by rules set down by Lorien/Triad. Ignoring the rules in the game means it becomes less and less of a game. Neither really wanted this but Sheriden pressed the issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But they had the right to (dis)agree, to do what they considered right. Some just considered it more openly, trying to understand others. Some had become fixed in their ways and refused to admit that the primitive "younger races" were living sentient beings -- just like the First Ones. Not better or worse, simply more short-lived.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hardly, doing so would lead to direct wars! In which case it is mutual assured destruction (MAD). Totally stupid in other words. The Kirishiac didn't know or abide by the rules, guess what happened? They took owned the galaxy basically and attacked the first ones! Which is WHY it was decided to take such active involvement in the YR's in the first place. To make sure that direct wars would NOT happen again.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Compare the Shadow city with Coriana 6. Sheridan was not capable of fighting the Shadows without destroying himself and many others. He chose to do it -- because he had no other way. But the Vorlons had another way. Their fleet was powerful and numerous enough to destroy *individual* Shadow ships and installations on Coriana -- not the whole damn planet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was dead either way, so he choose to kill civilians just to take some shadows with him. I agree but judging the Vorlons by doing the same thing to save countless lives, makes Sheriden a hypocrite. No problem, no ones perfect.... doesn't change that fact. Erm... of course the Vorlons have the ability to destroy the planet or did we miss the whole "the planets not there anymore" line? The Vorlons and Shadows are roughly EQUAL as stated by JMS (post), and direct war would end up in both their deaths due to their sheer power.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I partly agree that good and evil depend on perspective. But not in the way you said. Deciding whether something is good or evil requires putting yourself into another person's perspective. After that the decision is simple -- evil is what you don't wish done to yourself. The younger races did not wish themselves manipulated or provoked into wars. Hence the Shadows and Vorlons were committing acts of evil no matter what they believed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The decision is STILL on your perspective though since the imagination is based on your memory. The younger races LEARNT they did not need the first ones just like the first ones learnt from Lorien/Triad.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Who was less evil, Stalin or Hitler? Are all means justified? My answer: all means are not justified. Both were evil. They are difficult to compare. Stalin may have caused more damage than Hitler, but the damage took more time and was less intensive. Consider it this way - if Hitler would have commanded the resources of the USSR, the result would have been far worse. The allies chose to support Stalin because Hitler was the one who attacked, the one whose victory would have been worse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well duh... but if they won your perspective could be VERY different. God killed more than both of them put together, yet he is good... why? Because he wins. The lesser of evils, makes it ok then? The allies did the same thing, killed, raped, slaughtered innocents etc. for fun... almost always a part of war. Yet we're the good guys, they the bad because they have a bigger number.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You mentioned something about history being written by winners. You are wrong. Just like everything else, winners are temporary. Once they are gone, objectivity will be gradually restored. History must not decide who was evil or not. History is not for judging, only for learning about the human nature -- so we can limit our subjectivity and the consequences of our mistakes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you oh wise one for the revelation. Objectivity is based on what they know, what they know is what they're taught, what they're taught is governed by the winners. And so the next generation learn the same.

------------------
Marc Cosgrove

"From chaos, order came. As was inevitable." -Summoning light

**DONOTDELETE** · Nov 24, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>God killed more than both of them put together, yet he is good... why?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who? Which god? Where? When? Sorry. This would require me to believe in a god and consider it inherently good. Unfortunately I don't -- so I find it hard to give you a sufficient answer.

You asked why people consider god to be good... and pointed out a reference to an ancient religious text for comparison. Have you considered if this is the kind of god today's people really believe in? Or is the text just a collection of stories? Some thoughtful, some useless. From different times, authors and backgrounds. How can the representation of god from one ancient legend be exemplified as the sole representation of current beliefs?

Therefore I find your comparison just as inadequate as mine. Personally I don't consider the universe either good or bad - simply what we make of it. The future depends on our choices.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No but twisting my words to mean what you want them to is rude.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry. It was an exaggerated example of how far one can go when searching for hypocrisy. When looking really hard, one can find it in anything.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Hardly, doing so would lead to direct wars! In which case it is mutual assured destruction (MAD). Totally stupid in other words.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not mean the rules of engagement but rules in general. Habits. What if the Shadows would have realized the futility of the thing, broken a habit and started negotiations with the Vorlons? For a mutual withdrawal -- to let the younger races choose on their own?

Sheridan's intervention in the Shadow/Vorlon conflict was a breaking of their rules, but not Sheridan's rules. He had every right to remind them that they had no right for deciding the life and death of others -- worlds where most people had made no choice between them (or were completely unaware of their existance). Yes, it could have lead to a greater war, but it held the promise of ending the eternal Shadow wars.

Even if it would have lead to another great war with open involvement from First Ones, it couldn't have been much worse than the war at Valen's time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Which is WHY it was decided to take such active involvement in the YR's in the first place.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Putting up jump gates and showing one's presence would have been enough. The spidery and squiddy ones got too enhusiastic with their involvement, choosing straightforward control and manipulation, which was far beyond the agreement.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>He was dead either way, so he choose to kill civilians just to take some shadows with him. I agree but judging the Vorlons by doing the same thing to save countless lives, makes Sheriden a hypocrite.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I have always stressed, the situation was different. The Vorlons were not in a corner. They could destroy *only* the Shadow bases on Coriana with little effort, yet they tried to destroy the whole planet. Sheridan didn't think that everything touched by the enemy must die.

In fact, he couldn't even ensure his own escape or survival. He had only one way to hurt the enemy and he was in a situation which justified using it. And as I have always argued, there were probably very few people qualifying as civilians in the Shadow city.

Another exaggerated example, if you don't mind: "No! Don't shoot at that battlecrab! There's a civilian wired into it."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No problem, no ones perfect...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least one thing we can agree on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The Vorlons and Shadows are roughly EQUAL as stated by JMS (post), and direct war would end up in both their deaths due to their sheer power.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why they would never do it. Mutually assured destruction can be a rather good deterrant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The decision is STILL on your perspective though since the imagination is based on your memory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can we agree to disagree? If you choose to believe that it is impossible to imagine onseself as another, you are welcome to do so.

I on the contrary believe that all sentient life shares some basic similarities -- such as a wish to live, to choose one's own way and to find a purpose for one's life. Nothing overly complicated is needed to consider these aspects.

-----

A minor addition on the subjectivity of history: I see a line of increasing objectivity from current politics (very blurred, we can not distance ourselves to observe) to modern history, to medieval and ancient history, to the history of our species, life and ultimately our planet and star.

I can observe the decline of Rome and the rise of Temujin (FYI: Genghis Khan) much more neutrally than the Cold War or the disintegration of USSR. I can discuss the evolution of stars more objectively than the evolution of our species. It is because the participants, both seeming "winners" and "losers" are more distant.

Losers have won again and winners lost again, nobody cares if their ancestors came from one way or another. Histories have been rewritten by both participants and observers, secrets revealed and countless opinions considered. The errors have cancelled each other out, consideration of many sources has limited subjectivity. Yes, there is still subjectivity. It is simply increasingly more limited.

[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited November 25, 2001).]

Jade Jaguar · Nov 24, 2001

Dark Lord, I don't understand why you 'remind' me of something I clearly stated, and you infact, quote me as saying. I said that Kosh and the Vorlons attacked in support of the Alliance at Sheridan's BEHEST, which means at his urgent request, and on his behalf. But that doesn't really matter to the Shadows. The rules of engagement between them and the Vorlons were broken by the Vorlons DIRECT attack on the Shadows, rather than using proxies, as they always had in the past. Sheridan, in fact, had no rules of engagement with the Shadows, except as his own morals dictated. To the best of our knowledge there were no innocents on Z'Ha'Dum, only the Shadows and their allies, so Sheridan is certainly not a hypocrite for opposing the Vorlons when they attacked and destroyed whole planets that had only had unwilling contact with the Shadows, and were not the enemy.

It is true that subjectivity enters into how we see everything, and bad people define the evil they do as good. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. Your argument that there is no good or bad, or evil, is ultimately solopsistic. Lennier, and I, in my previous post, offered reasonable, and easy to understand approaches to determining what is good and evil. And even if they can be twisted by some, doesn't make them invalid. You mention God. I am an atheist, but if you believe in God, I would point out that most people who do see him as the ultimate definer of good and evil. I think that truth will out over time, as Lennier has said. It would seem that you at least believe in some sort of right and wrong, or it would be pointless for you to argue that your position is right.

------------------
You're speaking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Maid Marian
Fluently! Errol Flynn as Robin Hood
You're talking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Arabella Bishop
I trust I'm not obscure. Errol Flynn as Dr. Peter Blood

Pallindromes of the month: Snug was I, ere I saw guns.
Doom an evil deed, liven a mood.

AngelSummers · Nov 25, 2001

Jade Jaguar, Lennier, forget about it. His next post would only serve to confuse the line of our humanity. Dark Lord may as well call himself Sauron or Morgoth or even Satan because that's what he's playing the role of. Simple rules of right and wrong being twisted just because I minority of idiots (albeit a large minority) serve as evidence of those "blurring of line between right and wrong. (Al-Qeida Muslims come to mind)

I still don't get why Dark Lord condemns Sheridan just because he had a chance to hurt the Shadows and strike a major blow to the enemy. He didn't do it for any ultrisic reason other than those which are purely military. Mainly, take them with you since they tried to kill you. (actually, sticiking him in a shadow ship which I think is a living hell) Why you choose to confuse Vorlon and Shadow ideology as though Sheridan knew about those damn Shadow War rules in the first place is beyond me.

Look Dark Lord, I don't mean to argue with you but your ideas are just too nuts to comprehend. You considerably blur lines of the most simple things, even crossing the road without looking. I can't say anything anymore because its as though you are speaking a foreign language with me so I'll withdraw from this. My advice is still the same. Think simple and direct.

By the way, in case you are ignorant, Buddha is a man, not a God. I am following the teaching of a wise man who made some startling obeservations on Human behaviour which turns out to be true 99% of the time.

But then, even evidence can be twisted like you have don't you? Next post is that Buddha is a conman. Well, he might be but a damn good and virtuos one.

------------------
May the light of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha protect you.

May you all be well and happy, free from suffering, free from sickness.

KoshN · Nov 25, 2001

When I first saw the thread title, my first response was that there are no real villains here, but then I remembered Clark. IF there are any real villains here, it's the ones like Clark, or Bester. Individuals can be villains, but not entire races. No race is that homogeneous. Individuals have individual minds, and sooner or later there will be dissenters.

To me, a villain is an individual who will hurt/maim/kill anyone or anything, to further their own personal interests.[1]

The Vorlons are no more villains than the Shadows are.

[1] This is why I find the following movies so hard to believe:

National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
It's A Wonderful Life
A Christmas Carol (all versions, including "Scrooged")

In real life, Clark Griswold's boss would have him thrown in jail, Potter would win and George Bailey would be in jail, and Scrooge would never repent. I know it's all just escapist stuff, but can anybody actually see a real boss or CEO doing what we see them do in these films, something that was not in their own immediate, personal best interests? Sorry, I just can't suspend belief that much anymore.

------------------
KoshN
-------------
Vorlon Empire

"To Live and Die in Starlight"
pilot movie for "Babylon 5 - The Legend of the Rangers"
January 19, 2002 at 9PM on The Sci-Fi Channel.
http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/

KoshN · Nov 25, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lennier:
A tough question, especially as I don't know the films you used as examples (with the possible exception of Scrooge as I have read some works of Charles Dickens).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. Hard to believe!

All are broadcast many times around this time of year. It's a Wonderful Life is a Jimmy Stewart movie (1946 , IIRC), National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation stars Chevy Chase, Beverly D'Angelo, Brian Doyle Murray (Bill's brother) and lots of others, and Scrooged stars Bill Murray, Karen Allan and lots of others.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lennier:
I recall G'Kar mentioning that "the world runs on enlightened self-interest". Enlightened self-interest is based on a simple realization: if others fall, we will fall too. By helping someone you are helping everyone, including yourself.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's been my experience that most bosses & CEOs, the vast majority, don't look that far, i.e. don't look beyond themselves. Anybody beyond themselves, or at most their immediate family, is viewed as a tool, an object, a means to an end, and nothing more.

I used to be able to enjoy these movies, but then things started going downhill in ~1996. One by one, nice things were taken away, horrible things were substituted, and work started to have that grey, drab feeling like you were working behind the Iron Curtain. Playing Christmas Carols were prohibited (nothing via speakers, and headphones were also prohibited). The annual on-site Christmas party was prohibited. If you went off-site to a Christmas party, and were gone more than 1/2 hour, it counted against you, and making up the time did NOT balance the books, timewise. Downsizing began in ernest, but the total amount of work stayed the same. Same work, fewer people, equals greatly increased work per person. Those who were already working at or near full capacity (me) were totally screwed. Those who had goofed off for years could easily increase their productivity, and look like they made vast improvements (and actually get RAISES, because of it!). Both paid and unpaid overtime were discouraged, but you still had to get the work done. It was a double-edged sword. Your workload vastly increased, and you were expected to get it all done without any overtime (paid or unpaid), without taking any shortcuts, or taking work home. I felt like a hydraulic machine, whose hydraulic fluid was removed and replaced completely with water. Then, the >130 year old company (of about 10,000 employees) was divided up and sold off, over the next 2.5 years.

Yeah, that stuff in the movies, it's all fairy tales.

------------------
KoshN
-------------
Vorlon Empire

"To Live and Die in Starlight"
pilot movie for "Babylon 5 - The Legend of the Rangers"
January 19, 2002 at 9PM on The Sci-Fi Channel. http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/

[This message has been edited by KoshN (edited November 25, 2001).]

Kribu · Nov 25, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>KoshN posted:

Wow. Hard to believe! All are broadcast many times around this time of year. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on where one lives. I can assure you that as far as I can remember, It's A Wonderful Life has never been broadcast on Estonian TV - which would explain Lennier not having seen it.

It's been shown on Finnish TV a few times... I have vague memories of having seen it as a young girl but not being very interested in it.

------------------
"Narns, Humans, Centauri... we all do what we do for the same reason: because it seems like a good idea at the time." - G'Kar, Mind War
Kribu's Lounge | kribu@ranger.b5lr.com

**DONOTDELETE** · Nov 25, 2001

Companies and their CEO-s come in all varieties. And a 130-year old company whose business model has become unstable is likely to have a frustrated, cornered and quite possibly not too caring CEO. And such a company (and the resulting pieces) are likely to hang on to their life at the cost of their employees.

Such is their way, especially in case of large companies where the voice of one person has less relative influence. Without proper administration they become fixed in their ways, stagnate and eventually crumble, splashing dirt over all bystanders.

In case of relatively new or smaller companies the situation is different. If the owners would appoint an intolerable CEO to our company, I would argue, and if necessary "walk loudly" (as JMS once put it). It would have sufficient weight to make them consider my opinion. In case of large corporations there have to be good mechanisms to balance the drive for profit - such as regulations, customer/peer criticism and an adequate presence of trade unions.

The CEO is a link between the employees, the company as an organisation and the owners. A person responsible in three ways. It is not an enviable position and usually gets filled with the wrong kind of people. One can survive at such a position without making ugly compromises only if all sides are in balance or you have an exceedingly strong personality.

Most of them don't.

[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited November 25, 2001).]

Zoriah · Nov 25, 2001

Sorry to hear that KoshN, it must be very discouraging when events like that happen and affect your life so badly.

I hope you are now in a better workplace and being well.

As far as the Vorlons and Shadows go, they had a set of their own behaviours and rules that in the past they had stuck to. This time they went further with their schemes e.g. the introduction of telepaths etc and this upped the anti for the struggle of 'ideas'. The manipulations and proddings put the younger races in jeopardy, and since Sheridan had been let into the loop a bit, he couldn't stand by and let his people get caught in the crossfire. The shadows helped Londo destroy a narn colony. They weren't forced. Kosh decided to help Sheridan and the Earthers because the fragile alliance of races was crumbling due to their losses, and Sheridan was desperate.

I don't see Sheridan 'forcing' anything, I see him responding to a situation with the best interests of his people and the other races in mind. He didn't want war, but he wasn't going to sit around and let the Shadows or the Vorlons continue their conflict with disregard for the well being of the younger races.

Wasn't he saying to Kosh basically : Isn't this your war? Why aren't you fighting it? My people are dying because you have a problem with the shadows and you aren't lifting a finger....

I agree that evil can be a matter of perspective. If a person does one evil or reprehensible act e.g. Allowing mass drivers to be used on a planet killing millions, does that mean he is fundamentally an evil person? Bester spacing a mundane....any different than Londo ordering Refa's demise?
What if that mundane was a murderer of teeps?
So is it the intent, and whether there is some sort of remorse or regret afterwards that justifies such things? Or are they all evil acts carried out by men that are neither truly good nor evil.

------------------

[This message has been edited by Zoriah (edited November 25, 2001).]

**DONOTDELETE** · Nov 26, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>can anybody actually see a real boss or CEO doing what we see them do in these films, something that was not in their own immediate, personal best interests?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A tough question, especially as I don't know the films you used as examples (with the possible exception of Scrooge as I have read some works of Charles Dickens).

Would a CEO do anything which is not clearly in his/her best interest? Perhaps. It would certainly depend on the situation and person. Being a CEO is just a profession. A profession which gives you some influence and responsibilities, tasks which may sometimes be contradictory, choices which may not always be easy. How a person handles such choices depends on the person. Some get broken by stress, others find a way to relax. Some let themselves be corrupted by power, others keep their integrity.

Would any of us help someone - even if it may produce personal discomfort to us? Sometimes. Again it depends on the person and situation.

I recall G'Kar mentioning that "the world runs on enlightened self-interest". Enlightened self-interest is based on a simple realization: if others fall, we will fall too. By helping someone you are helping everyone, including yourself.

Being secure but alone is far worse than having the company, cooperation or friendship of others in an otherwise imperfect world. And I'm sure that this can be understood by people of all backgrounds... given suitable conditions.

My answer to your question: perhaps.

[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited November 25, 2001).]

AngelSummers · Nov 27, 2001

I'm probably getting religious here and we all know that can't be good

but I can offer an explanation of good and evil in the eye of the Buddha.

Buddha basically identified the root of suffering which is ignorance. It makes sense (to me anyway) because fer always seem to be the driving emotion for acts of evil. Fear of the unknown especially. It is because of ignorance or lack of knowledge that people tend to do stupid things or at worse, genocidal ones. Everybody is doing something extreme one way or another. So he laid down a list of rules, or rather way of life for his followers known as the Noble Eightfold Middle Path. My memory is fuzzy but I think it is:

Right View
Right Intention
Right Speech, Right Thought, Right Livelihood
Right Effort
Right Mindfulness
Right Concentration

...along with a number of lay man's rules for those who do not wish to follow the life of a monk. The most common is the five precepts.

1)Don't Kill
2)Don't Steal
3)Don't commit sexual misconduct
4)Don't lie
5)Don't be an addict to anything eg. alcohol, drugs, anything that can intoxicate you.

Now here's the part where I start doubting Buddhism. (I might have mentioned somewhere I'm a 1/4 atheist as well) Basically, it boils down to intentions of the mind. These rules are not strict in the sense the moment you break it you go to hell. In my studies of Buddhism, to commit an evil act, you need a combination of bad intentions and wrong actions. For example, killing a man in self-defense or accidentally is having the right intention (or at least not a bad one) but still a wrong act. So basically, there is a way to "bend" the rules provided you didn't intend to do that bad deed. Your bad deeds will basically lessen as opposed to an actual murderer who kills for fun. (bad intentions + bad deeds)

Thing is, this means Osama and his merry band of terrorist may not be getting the FULL punishment for being evil-minded and evil-doers. Osama himself maybe the true evil mastermind (bad intentions:hurt people for sake of personal gain+ bad deeds). But what about the others who truly believe in Osama's cause? Do we call them innocent because they're brainwashed? It's like debating whehter the kid who shot his classmate is evil or not. (bad intentions??????? + bad deeds) In Buddhist context it is still inherently evil but the fact that some may truly be misled or brainwashed makes the whole situation more confusing because now Osama's band is made of truly greedy and maniacle masterminds who want nothing but reap personal gain as well as though who honestly believe they are fighting for Islam.

So here's the big tragedy. So many people being led to the side of evil without knowing it. As a Buddhist, I can only take comfort that if they truly were misled, they're punishment in the afterlife would not be as severe as one who truly is evil.

And when I say evil, I say this. Bad intentions + Bad deeds. And when I say bad intentions, I'm saying personal gain.

Now you can flame me for daring to bring religious application to a mostly atheist forum. I would remind you though that Buddhsim actually indicates life outside Earth.

------------------
May the light of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha protect you.

May you all be well and happy, free from suffering, free from sickness.

Kribu · Nov 27, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by AngelSummers:
Now you can flame me for daring to bring religious application to a mostly atheist forum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I very much doubt that anyone will flame you for this, AngelSummers, although it's entirely possible that people might disagree with you.

As for this being a mostly atheist forum... I have certainly got the feeling that we atheists are a minority here.

------------------
"Narns, Humans, Centauri... we all do what we do for the same reason: because it seems like a good idea at the time." - G'Kar, Mind War
Kribu's Lounge | kribu@ranger.b5lr.com

GKarsEye · Nov 27, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Basically, it boils down to intentions of the mind. These rules are not strict in the sense the moment you break it you go to hell. In my studies of Buddhism, to commit an evil act, you need a combination of bad intentions and wrong actions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buddhism isn't by any means unique in this. Judaism says the same thing, as do scores of other Eastern religions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Do we call them innocent because they're brainwashed? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Adults take responsibility for their own actions. Perhaps as an atheist my view is made subjective because I don't believe we answer to a god or any such non-human judgement. We are our own judges.

Besides, it doesn't matter if we "call them innocent." They are our enemies and must be treated as such, regardless of how they came to be that way.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>mostly atheist forum<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are probably only a handful of people here that would call themselves atheist, and a few more "closet" atheists. It may seem like there is a larger heathen presence here because the loudest, most obnoxioius person here is one.

AngelSummers, what the heck is 1/4 atheist, anyway? Either you believe in god or ya don't. I'm just curious.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."

who are the real villains here ???

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Beyond the rim

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Beyond the rim

Beyond the rim

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Regular

Beyond the rim

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Administrator

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Beyond the rim

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Beyond the rim

Administrator

Regular

Share this page

We value your privacy

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE