No Time To Die: Why It Should Not Have Been Made (The Way It Was)

1141517192032

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Killing someone because you were ordered to is far more despicable than doing so following your own conscience. I don t buy this "government sanctioned" justification.

    And in one sweep the whole concept of 'government' is undone. You really want people to just go around and kill other people on the basis of their own 'concience'? I think we've had a not-too-long-ago example in your own country where quite a few young people died on the basis of this reasoning...

    Why do you twist my words?

    If your words are so easily misunderstood, perhaps they weren't very clearly phrased in the first place.

    And you haven't bothered to respond to my stated position: the armed forces of the western powers (forgive me for not knowing where you're located, I make the rash assumption that you are a citizen of one of the western nations) all follow the orders of their superiors. If the President of the USA says "go over there and shoot at THOSE people" then the armed forces of my own nation will be following his orders. I don't fault them for that. I may disagree with their orders but then I protest to our President. I don't fault the armed forces for following their orders. According to your own statements, then evidently YOU DO. Am I misunderstanding your position?

    No.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,020
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I loved that game. Too bad it won't work on W10.

    I'd love to play it again. That aquarium scene in which Bond meets with Colonel Ping was pretty cool. The casino level was great, as well.

    I must also play the Quantum of Solace game again.
  • Killing someone because you were ordered to is far more despicable than doing so following your own conscience. I don t buy this "government sanctioned" justification.

    And in one sweep the whole concept of 'government' is undone. You really want people to just go around and kill other people on the basis of their own 'concience'? I think we've had a not-too-long-ago example in your own country where quite a few young people died on the basis of this reasoning...

    Why do you twist my words?

    If your words are so easily misunderstood, perhaps they weren't very clearly phrased in the first place.

    And you haven't bothered to respond to my stated position: the armed forces of the western powers (forgive me for not knowing where you're located, I make the rash assumption that you are a citizen of one of the western nations) all follow the orders of their superiors. If the President of the USA says "go over there and shoot at THOSE people" then the armed forces of my own nation will be following his orders. I don't fault them for that. I may disagree with their orders but then I protest to our President. I don't fault the armed forces for following their orders. According to your own statements, then evidently YOU DO. Am I misunderstanding your position?

    No.

    Remind me not to vote for you.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Killing someone because you were ordered to is far more despicable than doing so following your own conscience. I don t buy this "government sanctioned" justification.

    And in one sweep the whole concept of 'government' is undone. You really want people to just go around and kill other people on the basis of their own 'concience'? I think we've had a not-too-long-ago example in your own country where quite a few young people died on the basis of this reasoning...

    Why do you twist my words?

    If your words are so easily misunderstood, perhaps they weren't very clearly phrased in the first place.

    And you haven't bothered to respond to my stated position: the armed forces of the western powers (forgive me for not knowing where you're located, I make the rash assumption that you are a citizen of one of the western nations) all follow the orders of their superiors. If the President of the USA says "go over there and shoot at THOSE people" then the armed forces of my own nation will be following his orders. I don't fault them for that. I may disagree with their orders but then I protest to our President. I don't fault the armed forces for following their orders. According to your own statements, then evidently YOU DO. Am I misunderstanding your position?

    No.

    Remind me not to vote for you.

    I am not up for election.
  • Killing someone because you were ordered to is far more despicable than doing so following your own conscience. I don t buy this "government sanctioned" justification.

    And in one sweep the whole concept of 'government' is undone. You really want people to just go around and kill other people on the basis of their own 'concience'? I think we've had a not-too-long-ago example in your own country where quite a few young people died on the basis of this reasoning...

    Why do you twist my words?

    If your words are so easily misunderstood, perhaps they weren't very clearly phrased in the first place.

    And you haven't bothered to respond to my stated position: the armed forces of the western powers (forgive me for not knowing where you're located, I make the rash assumption that you are a citizen of one of the western nations) all follow the orders of their superiors. If the President of the USA says "go over there and shoot at THOSE people" then the armed forces of my own nation will be following his orders. I don't fault them for that. I may disagree with their orders but then I protest to our President. I don't fault the armed forces for following their orders. According to your own statements, then evidently YOU DO. Am I misunderstanding your position?

    No.

    Remind me not to vote for you.

    I am not up for election.

    Never Say Never...
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited January 2022 Posts: 45,489
    Killing someone because you were ordered to is far more despicable than doing so following your own conscience. I don t buy this "government sanctioned" justification.

    And in one sweep the whole concept of 'government' is undone. You really want people to just go around and kill other people on the basis of their own 'concience'? I think we've had a not-too-long-ago example in your own country where quite a few young people died on the basis of this reasoning...

    Why do you twist my words?

    If your words are so easily misunderstood, perhaps they weren't very clearly phrased in the first place.

    And you haven't bothered to respond to my stated position: the armed forces of the western powers (forgive me for not knowing where you're located, I make the rash assumption that you are a citizen of one of the western nations) all follow the orders of their superiors. If the President of the USA says "go over there and shoot at THOSE people" then the armed forces of my own nation will be following his orders. I don't fault them for that. I may disagree with their orders but then I protest to our President. I don't fault the armed forces for following their orders. According to your own statements, then evidently YOU DO. Am I misunderstanding your position?

    No.

    Remind me not to vote for you.

    I am not up for election.

    Never Say Never...
    Nope. This is my stance.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Just watching the concluding episodes of Showtimes Dexter New Blood, and Ray Donovan this week, and BBC's The Tourist, and there is definitely a trend at the moment of killing off the main characters, or giving the series a depressing, gloomy ending.

    I couldn't help but think of NTTD as I watched these episodes unfold. It's a new craze in Hollywood circles at the moment. All flawed heroes no longer deserve happy endings.

    Here's a radical notion: consider the possibility that those in Hollywood circles aren't trying to upset you; rather, they are trying to create storylines that have some resonance to our times. If all the "flawed heroes" (which is to say, all heroes period) are meeting depressing, gloomy endings, then what does that say about the times we are living in? Sorry if you don't like these gloomy, depressing times -- who does? -- but maybe that's why the creators of fiction are telling these sorts of stories. They're just reflecting the times we live in.

    PS: "Dexter" is a flawed hero? That's strange, I thought he was a serial killer. You have an interesting definition of the term "hero." Or maybe that's just why I don't watch Dexter, I'm not inclined towards sympathy for serial killers.

    Dexter only kills bad people, so in my book that makes him a flawed hero (no different to Bond in many respects). But then again, you haven't watched the series, so you shouldn't really comment on something you haven't watched.

    And nothing `radical' about you said with the Hollywood circles. It is reflecting the times we live in, which is why I think some light hearted relief wouldn't go amiss in these gloomy times we are now in. Isn't that what we go to the cinema for?

    What an American way of thinking: that there are actually 'bad people'.

    Well, there ARE. Our last president, for example. ;)

    Even that guy has his good sides. probaly. well tucked away...

    I'm not sure you understand the nature of evil, sir...
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Just watching the concluding episodes of Showtimes Dexter New Blood, and Ray Donovan this week, and BBC's The Tourist, and there is definitely a trend at the moment of killing off the main characters, or giving the series a depressing, gloomy ending.

    I couldn't help but think of NTTD as I watched these episodes unfold. It's a new craze in Hollywood circles at the moment. All flawed heroes no longer deserve happy endings.

    Here's a radical notion: consider the possibility that those in Hollywood circles aren't trying to upset you; rather, they are trying to create storylines that have some resonance to our times. If all the "flawed heroes" (which is to say, all heroes period) are meeting depressing, gloomy endings, then what does that say about the times we are living in? Sorry if you don't like these gloomy, depressing times -- who does? -- but maybe that's why the creators of fiction are telling these sorts of stories. They're just reflecting the times we live in.

    PS: "Dexter" is a flawed hero? That's strange, I thought he was a serial killer. You have an interesting definition of the term "hero." Or maybe that's just why I don't watch Dexter, I'm not inclined towards sympathy for serial killers.

    Dexter only kills bad people, so in my book that makes him a flawed hero (no different to Bond in many respects). But then again, you haven't watched the series, so you shouldn't really comment on something you haven't watched.

    And nothing `radical' about you said with the Hollywood circles. It is reflecting the times we live in, which is why I think some light hearted relief wouldn't go amiss in these gloomy times we are now in. Isn't that what we go to the cinema for?

    What an American way of thinking: that there are actually 'bad people'.

    Well, there ARE. Our last president, for example. ;)

    Even that guy has his good sides. probaly. well tucked away...

    I'm not sure you understand the nature of evil, sir...

    Neither do people who ignore Hitler...
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    I guess what Thunderfinger means ist that killing due to a government's order does not necessarily make it unproblematic. Usually Western countries do not hire assassins who kill people in other countries since this leads to enormous international conflicts. That is why I usually prefer to reagard Bond to be a spy who must kill when there is no other option.... instead of seeing him as an assassin.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    GBF wrote: »
    I guess what Thunderfinger means ist that killing due to a government's order does not necessarily make it unproblematic.

    Thank you, exactly. Quite the opposite. Incredible how hard this is to fathom for some. People shouldn t be mindless goons. Radical leaders are powerless without them.
  • GBF wrote: »
    I guess what Thunderfinger means ist that killing due to a government's order does not necessarily make it unproblematic.

    Thank you, exactly. Quite the opposite. Incredible how hard this is to fathom for some. People shouldn t be mindless goons. Radical leaders are powerless without them.

    I only signed up for the five minute argument. Sorry, but your time is over...
  • edited January 2022 Posts: 572
    Sorry to add fuel to the fire, but why is government orders to kill only a western nations thing? I'm pretty sure most governments do some pretty shady things, including ordering to kill with a lack of moral conscious. Regardless, the situation is complex, because the person ordered to kill faces consequences no matter what he/she does.

    Also count me in for movies with happy endings going forward. I'd appreciate a little escapism from these politically turbulent times.
  • Posts: 342
    Killing someone because you were ordered to is far more despicable than doing so following your own conscience. I don t buy this "government sanctioned" justification.

    And in one sweep the whole concept of 'government' is undone. You really want people to just go around and kill other people on the basis of their own 'concience'? I think we've had a not-too-long-ago example in your own country where quite a few young people died on the basis of this reasoning...

    Why do you twist my words?

    If your words are so easily misunderstood, perhaps they weren't very clearly phrased in the first place.

    And you haven't bothered to respond to my stated position: the armed forces of the western powers (forgive me for not knowing where you're located, I make the rash assumption that you are a citizen of one of the western nations) all follow the orders of their superiors. If the President of the USA says "go over there and shoot at THOSE people" then the armed forces of my own nation will be following his orders. I don't fault them for that. I may disagree with their orders but then I protest to our President. I don't fault the armed forces for following their orders. According to your own statements, evidently YOU DO. Am I misunderstanding your position?

    The Nuremberg trial judges faulted soldiers for doing that
  • Troy wrote: »
    Killing someone because you were ordered to is far more despicable than doing so following your own conscience. I don t buy this "government sanctioned" justification.

    And in one sweep the whole concept of 'government' is undone. You really want people to just go around and kill other people on the basis of their own 'concience'? I think we've had a not-too-long-ago example in your own country where quite a few young people died on the basis of this reasoning...

    Why do you twist my words?

    If your words are so easily misunderstood, perhaps they weren't very clearly phrased in the first place.

    And you haven't bothered to respond to my stated position: the armed forces of the western powers (forgive me for not knowing where you're located, I make the rash assumption that you are a citizen of one of the western nations) all follow the orders of their superiors. If the President of the USA says "go over there and shoot at THOSE people" then the armed forces of my own nation will be following his orders. I don't fault them for that. I may disagree with their orders but then I protest to our President. I don't fault the armed forces for following their orders. According to your own statements, evidently YOU DO. Am I misunderstanding your position?

    The Nuremberg trial judges faulted soldiers for doing that

    I can't pretend to have studied the Nuremberg trials extensively, so I may be off base on this. HOWEVER: my understanding is that common soldiers of the Wehrmacht weren't generally brought to trial at Nuremberg. That tribunal was for higher-ups, the ones who gave orders to the soldiers that were beyond the pale of simple war, but rather, led to genocidal actions on the parts of those soldiers. Concentration camp commanders and above. If you have information to the contrary, please feel free to enlighten me.

    What I'm thinking about are the American soldiers who served in Vietnam. Some of them experienced castigation from other American civilians upon their return from 'Nam -- some soldiers in uniform were cursed at & spat upon, etc., by "protestors" upon their return. Now, I protested the conduct of that war myself, back in the day -- but I never expressed my distaste for that war in this particular fashion, and I think it was inappropriate behavior on the part of anti-war activists. That's more the sort of thing I'm referencing here.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited January 2022 Posts: 17,789
    Troy wrote: »
    Killing someone because you were ordered to is far more despicable than doing so following your own conscience. I don t buy this "government sanctioned" justification.

    And in one sweep the whole concept of 'government' is undone. You really want people to just go around and kill other people on the basis of their own 'concience'? I think we've had a not-too-long-ago example in your own country where quite a few young people died on the basis of this reasoning...

    Why do you twist my words?

    If your words are so easily misunderstood, perhaps they weren't very clearly phrased in the first place.

    And you haven't bothered to respond to my stated position: the armed forces of the western powers (forgive me for not knowing where you're located, I make the rash assumption that you are a citizen of one of the western nations) all follow the orders of their superiors. If the President of the USA says "go over there and shoot at THOSE people" then the armed forces of my own nation will be following his orders. I don't fault them for that. I may disagree with their orders but then I protest to our President. I don't fault the armed forces for following their orders. According to your own statements, evidently YOU DO. Am I misunderstanding your position?

    The Nuremberg trial judges faulted soldiers for doing that

    It is the duty of a government agent to follow orders unless those orders conflict with national interest or involve crimes against humanity.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,210
    chrisisall wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Just watching the concluding episodes of Showtimes Dexter New Blood, and Ray Donovan this week, and BBC's The Tourist, and there is definitely a trend at the moment of killing off the main characters, or giving the series a depressing, gloomy ending.

    I couldn't help but think of NTTD as I watched these episodes unfold. It's a new craze in Hollywood circles at the moment. All flawed heroes no longer deserve happy endings.

    Here's a radical notion: consider the possibility that those in Hollywood circles aren't trying to upset you; rather, they are trying to create storylines that have some resonance to our times. If all the "flawed heroes" (which is to say, all heroes period) are meeting depressing, gloomy endings, then what does that say about the times we are living in? Sorry if you don't like these gloomy, depressing times -- who does? -- but maybe that's why the creators of fiction are telling these sorts of stories. They're just reflecting the times we live in.

    PS: "Dexter" is a flawed hero? That's strange, I thought he was a serial killer. You have an interesting definition of the term "hero." Or maybe that's just why I don't watch Dexter, I'm not inclined towards sympathy for serial killers.

    Dexter only kills bad people, so in my book that makes him a flawed hero (no different to Bond in many respects). But then again, you haven't watched the series, so you shouldn't really comment on something you haven't watched.

    And nothing `radical' about you said with the Hollywood circles. It is reflecting the times we live in, which is why I think some light hearted relief wouldn't go amiss in these gloomy times we are now in. Isn't that what we go to the cinema for?

    What an American way of thinking: that there are actually 'bad people'.

    Well, there ARE. Our last president, for example. ;)

    Even that guy has his good sides. probaly. well tucked away...

    I'm not sure you understand the nature of evil, sir...

    Again, what an American thing to say... ;-) There's no evil, there's only judgement by your own moral code. Now there's plenty of arguments to be made why a certain moral code is superior to other codes, something humanists have strived for. And, imo, rightly so. But you should always be careful in judging others. i.e. sometimes we consider killing as evil, sometimes we raise the killer as a hero. Take the kid who ran into that protesting mob (BLM) and shot two dead when he got attacked. Everybody thought he must've been extreme right, but he actually SUPPORTED BLM. But he wanted to go and help the local stores defend themselves because he also believed in that second amendment thing you guys have going on. Now what was it? Was the kid evil, or a hero? Perhaps I should quote Mathis here?

    Of course, you can come up with plenty of evil people to prove a point that there's something like pure evil, but therein lies the danger. I know, it's a subtle point to make and perhaps won't be understood here, but I think it's always important to judge every situation as objectively as you can, before using the ultimate dehumanasing label of evil. For it has been used many times before - for evil.
    GBF wrote: »
    I guess what Thunderfinger means ist that killing due to a government's order does not necessarily make it unproblematic.

    Thank you, exactly. Quite the opposite. Incredible how hard this is to fathom for some. People shouldn t be mindless goons. Radical leaders are powerless without them.

    If you read what I wrote above again you might notice I've at no point said governments choices are by definition good. On the contrary, I've stated the same as @GBV, that all governments choices should be held accounted for. However, you implied that we should leave such judgement to the individual. And I've pointed out that such a libertarian point of view is far more dangerous. You've failed to see that point though, then claiming that I would be an assassin working for my government. Something I'm definately not.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Take the kid who ran into that protesting mob (BLM) and shot two dead when he got attacked. Everybody thought he must've been extreme right, but he actually SUPPORTED BLM. But he wanted to go and help the local stores defend themselves because he also believed in that second amendment thing you guys have going on. Now what was it? Was the kid evil, or a hero?
    Okay, first of all he did not support BLM and I have no idea where you got that.
    Second, no, he was not evil, but he was stupid (& prejudiced & gullible & badly parented), and his stupidity ended up causing two deaths.

    Also, if there is no evil, then logic dictates that there also is no good. I disagree with this duelistic disparity from a physics perspective. Is there also action without reaction? ;)
  • Lord this conversation has taken quite the turn...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited January 2022 Posts: 17,789
    Lord this conversation has taken quite the turn...

    Yes, but we have to this point retained a certain level of civility.

    Helen Tasker: Have you ever killed anyone?

    Harry Tasker: Yeah, but they were all bad.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,210
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Take the kid who ran into that protesting mob (BLM) and shot two dead when he got attacked. Everybody thought he must've been extreme right, but he actually SUPPORTED BLM. But he wanted to go and help the local stores defend themselves because he also believed in that second amendment thing you guys have going on. Now what was it? Was the kid evil, or a hero?
    Okay, first of all he did not support BLM and I have no idea where you got that.
    Second, no, he was not evil, but he was stupid (& prejudiced & gullible & badly parented), and his stupidity ended up causing two deaths.

    Also, if there is no evil, then logic dictates that there also is no good. I disagree with this duelistic disparity from a physics perspective. Is there also action without reaction? ;)

    He said so himself in a fox interview, iirc with tucker Carlson (talking of evil people.. Oh wait...). It confused the hell out of tucker for sure. And I agree on all the rest of your condemnations towards the guy, but does that make him a bad person? Problem is people act from their own point of view which to their mind is always trying to be good. I once did research into a nazi mayor of my home city during the war. He was a staunch catholic, blamed the jews for the death of christ and supported the nazi oppressor to implement anti-jewish rules. At the same time he tried to get Jewish people off the lists of people set to be rounded up for transport to concentration camps if they'd appealed to him or he knew them.

    And indeed, there's no such thing as an impartial 'good' either. Look at all those wars in the name of religion. Both sides always had God and the 'good' on their side, that's why they fought in the first place, against evil. So did the taliban and the US. Etc. Etc.
  • edited January 2022 Posts: 342
    Troy wrote: »
    Killing someone because you were ordered to is far more despicable than doing so following your own conscience. I don t buy this "government sanctioned" justification.

    And in one sweep the whole concept of 'government' is undone. You really want people to just go around and kill other people on the basis of their own 'concience'? I think we've had a not-too-long-ago example in your own country where quite a few young people died on the basis of this reasoning...

    Why do you twist my words?

    If your words are so easily misunderstood, perhaps they weren't very clearly phrased in the first place.

    And you haven't bothered to respond to my stated position: the armed forces of the western powers (forgive me for not knowing where you're located, I make the rash assumption that you are a citizen of one of the western nations) all follow the orders of their superiors. If the President of the USA says "go over there and shoot at THOSE people" then the armed forces of my own nation will be following his orders. I don't fault them for that. I may disagree with their orders but then I protest to our President. I don't fault the armed forces for following their orders. According to your own statements, evidently YOU DO. Am I misunderstanding your position?

    The Nuremberg trial judges faulted soldiers for doing that

    I can't pretend to have studied the Nuremberg trials extensively, so I may be off base on this. HOWEVER: my understanding is that common soldiers of the Wehrmacht weren't generally brought to trial at Nuremberg. That tribunal was for higher-ups, the ones who gave orders to the soldiers that were beyond the pale of simple war, but rather, led to genocidal actions on the parts of those soldiers. Concentration camp commanders and above. If you have information to the contrary, please feel free to enlighten me.

    What I'm thinking about are the American soldiers who served in Vietnam. Some of them experienced castigation from other American civilians upon their return from 'Nam -- some soldiers in uniform were cursed at & spat upon, etc., by "protestors" upon their return. Now, I protested the conduct of that war myself, back in the day -- but I never expressed my distaste for that war in this particular fashion, and I think it was inappropriate behavior on the part of anti-war activists. That's more the sort of thing I'm referencing here.

    Broadly I agree with your comments about Nuremberg. My point was simply that Nuremberg established that a soldier can’t use the “I was only following orders” defence, but has to make a choice on whether his/her actions in killing people is within international rules of law before following the government’s orders.

    Of course, there is always a degree of Victor’s law, whereby soldiers on the winning side are very unlikely to be tried for war crimes.

    What I find interesting about WW2, is that generally it was only the most senior nazis or most extreme cases that were prosecuted. And many of this given life sentences were quietly released by the mid 1950s. Most people just wanted to move on. It’s more recently that we’ve suddenly started prosecuting very old men for crimes that were ignored at the time.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Take the kid who ran into that protesting mob (BLM) and shot two dead when he got attacked. Everybody thought he must've been extreme right, but he actually SUPPORTED BLM. But he wanted to go and help the local stores defend themselves because he also believed in that second amendment thing you guys have going on. Now what was it? Was the kid evil, or a hero?
    Okay, first of all he did not support BLM and I have no idea where you got that.
    Second, no, he was not evil, but he was stupid (& prejudiced & gullible & badly parented), and his stupidity ended up causing two deaths.

    Also, if there is no evil, then logic dictates that there also is no good. I disagree with this duelistic disparity from a physics perspective. Is there also action without reaction? ;)

    He said so himself in a fox interview, iirc with tucker Carlson (talking of evil people.. Oh wait...). It confused the hell out of tucker for sure. And I agree on all the rest of your condemnations towards the guy, but does that make him a bad person? Problem is people act from their own point of view which to their mind is always trying to be good. I once did research into a nazi mayor of my home city during the war. He was a staunch catholic, blamed the jews for the death of christ and supported the nazi oppressor to implement anti-jewish rules. At the same time he tried to get Jewish people off the lists of people set to be rounded up for transport to concentration camps if they'd appealed to him or he knew them.

    And indeed, there's no such thing as an impartial 'good' either. Look at all those wars in the name of religion. Both sides always had God and the 'good' on their side, that's why they fought in the first place, against evil. So did the taliban and the US. Etc. Etc.

    Darth Vader just wanted to bring order to the galaxy.
    Thank you for a most interesting and balanced reply. And for your patience with this sometimes flippant yank. ;)
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Take the kid who ran into that protesting mob (BLM) and shot two dead when he got attacked. Everybody thought he must've been extreme right, but he actually SUPPORTED BLM. But he wanted to go and help the local stores defend themselves because he also believed in that second amendment thing you guys have going on. Now what was it? Was the kid evil, or a hero?
    Okay, first of all he did not support BLM and I have no idea where you got that.
    Second, no, he was not evil, but he was stupid (& prejudiced & gullible & badly parented), and his stupidity ended up causing two deaths.

    Also, if there is no evil, then logic dictates that there also is no good. I disagree with this duelistic disparity from a physics perspective. Is there also action without reaction? ;)

    He said so himself in a fox interview, iirc with tucker Carlson (talking of evil people.. Oh wait...). It confused the hell out of tucker for sure. And I agree on all the rest of your condemnations towards the guy, but does that make him a bad person? Problem is people act from their own point of view which to their mind is always trying to be good. I once did research into a nazi mayor of my home city during the war. He was a staunch catholic, blamed the jews for the death of christ and supported the nazi oppressor to implement anti-jewish rules. At the same time he tried to get Jewish people off the lists of people set to be rounded up for transport to concentration camps if they'd appealed to him or he knew them.

    And indeed, there's no such thing as an impartial 'good' either. Look at all those wars in the name of religion. Both sides always had God and the 'good' on their side, that's why they fought in the first place, against evil. So did the taliban and the US. Etc. Etc.

    Darth Vader just wanted to bring order to the galaxy.
    Thank you for a most interesting and balanced reply. And for your patience with this sometimes flippant yank. ;)

    I resemble that remark.

    Somehow though, I can't take seriously any remarks put before the public on the FauxNews channel. Especially from somebody accused of murder, claiming to support BLM. Yes, I think he's a bad person. So was the Catholic mayor supporting the Nazis. "Sympathy for Nazi supporters"? Not from me, thanks very much.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    chrisisall wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Take the kid who ran into that protesting mob (BLM) and shot two dead when he got attacked. Everybody thought he must've been extreme right, but he actually SUPPORTED BLM. But he wanted to go and help the local stores defend themselves because he also believed in that second amendment thing you guys have going on. Now what was it? Was the kid evil, or a hero?
    Okay, first of all he did not support BLM and I have no idea where you got that.
    Second, no, he was not evil, but he was stupid (& prejudiced & gullible & badly parented), and his stupidity ended up causing two deaths.

    Also, if there is no evil, then logic dictates that there also is no good. I disagree with this duelistic disparity from a physics perspective. Is there also action without reaction? ;)

    He said so himself in a fox interview, iirc with tucker Carlson (talking of evil people.. Oh wait...). It confused the hell out of tucker for sure. And I agree on all the rest of your condemnations towards the guy, but does that make him a bad person? Problem is people act from their own point of view which to their mind is always trying to be good. I once did research into a nazi mayor of my home city during the war. He was a staunch catholic, blamed the jews for the death of christ and supported the nazi oppressor to implement anti-jewish rules. At the same time he tried to get Jewish people off the lists of people set to be rounded up for transport to concentration camps if they'd appealed to him or he knew them.

    And indeed, there's no such thing as an impartial 'good' either. Look at all those wars in the name of religion. Both sides always had God and the 'good' on their side, that's why they fought in the first place, against evil. So did the taliban and the US. Etc. Etc.

    Darth Vader just wanted to bring order to the galaxy.
    Thank you for a most interesting and balanced reply. And for your patience with this sometimes flippant yank. ;)

    I resemble that remark.

    Somehow though, I can't take seriously any remarks put before the public on the FauxNews channel. Especially from somebody accused of murder, claiming to support BLM. Yes, I think he's a bad person. So was the Catholic mayor supporting the Nazis. "Sympathy for Nazi supporters"? Not from me, thanks very much.
    When does 'the evil that men do' become 'they are evil men'?
    I'm afraid that might be on a case by case basis...
    I'm feeling philosophical tonight, else I'd go all Indy....
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,127
    This seems very far off the subject of this thread.
    Let's get back on track please.
  • Benny wrote: »
    This seems very far off the subject of this thread.
    Let's get back on track please.

    As I mentioned before, this convo took quite the turn.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Benny wrote: »
    This seems very far off the subject of this thread.
    Let's get back on track please.

    Right. Forthwith!

    Bond blaming Madeline for the Vesper tomb explosion without proof was soap opera-level writing. Yes, it made for an amazing melodramatic scene inside the DB5 as the gunshots fractured the bulletproof glass, but like they say in fencing- what's the point?
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited January 2022 Posts: 7,546
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    This seems very far off the subject of this thread.
    Let's get back on track please.

    Right. Forthwith!

    Bond blaming Madeline for the Vesper tomb explosion without proof was soap opera-level writing. Yes, it made for an amazing melodramatic scene inside the DB5 as the gunshots fractured the bulletproof glass, but like they say in fencing- what's the point?

    He was already betrayed by Vesper in a similar way, and between Primo, and the phone... Spectre/Blofeld did a pretty good job of framing Madeleine IMO. And, the bags already packed and set to go at the hotel when he returned...

    And Madeleine picking that moment to say "There's something I need to tell you..." didn't do her any favours either.

    Makes perfect sense to me.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    This seems very far off the subject of this thread.
    Let's get back on track please.

    Right. Forthwith!

    Bond blaming Madeline for the Vesper tomb explosion without proof was soap opera-level writing. Yes, it made for an amazing melodramatic scene inside the DB5 as the gunshots fractured the bulletproof glass, but like they say in fencing- what's the point?

    He was already betrayed by Vesper in a similar way, and between Primo, and the phone... Spectre/Blofeld did a pretty good job of framing Madeleine IMO. And, the bags already packed and set to go at the hotel when he returned...

    And Madeleine picking that moment to say "There's something I need to tell you..." didn't do her any favours either.

    Makes perfect sense to me.

    The problem is that SPECTRE seems to spend all their efforts only in fooling Bond all day long as if they did not have more important things to do. At the same time they are simply wiped out by a random goon called Safin. There is just something wrong with the script. SPECTRE is just so extremely underdeveloped by the writers.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,176
    What makes you think fooling Bond for Blofeld's amusement was the only activity they were doing at the time?
Sign In or Register to comment.