Lonelygirl15 :: View topic - Kidnapping Jules: MISTAKE!!

Lonelygirl15
Forum to post messages about Bree and Danielbeast

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Kidnapping Jules: MISTAKE!!
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Lonelygirl15 Forum Index -> Concerns and Complaints

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Broken Kid
Site Admin

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 5276

Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 1:37 pm Post subject:

This topic may win for having the longest posts ever! _________________ President of the Owen Fan Club

Renegade
Enthusiastic Fan

Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 328
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:49 pm Post subject:

Broken Kid wrote:

This topic may win for having the longest posts ever! Shocked

Nah, it's cheating...the quotes are just longer than last time.

Lurker wrote:

Wouldn't not showing the kidnapping be the unethical move? It would really trivialize the severity of both the situation (the kidnapping of a little kid who was fully aware of what was happening to her) and the moral dilemma surrounding it. If we didn't see Jules in terror and trying to fight back, and it just went straight to her tied up on the floor or something, it would seem like the whole thing is hardly a big deal at all.

Yeah...right...'cause the way the characters handled it emphasized so much what a big deal it is. What was that? "What's the worst that could happen?" "Wanna get pizza?"

Lurker wrote:

I don't think they've been portrayed as completely good at all. Especially not Bree, who was going to let Jonas die just because she found that thing in his cabin and didn't want to believe him. All he'd done for her went out the window and she wouldn't even give him a chance. Even if he had been revealed as a villain, the way she reacted was unfair to him. Then there's how she's treated Daniel in the past, which was nothing short of cruel.

Jonas, of course, has had his moment with the gun, and while Daniel's never done anything one would consider an ethical breach in the same vein as those above, I don't really even think that a precedent for dark behavior is necessary to make this thing believable (though Bree certainly has her precedent).

As said earlier, I disagree - Bree, for example, had more-or-less clear indication that Jonas was part of the Order. She had been betrayed by new friends not so long before. So, while she certainly over-reacted, and should have talked to him first, she was, from her point of view, defending herself. Had she been right, Jonas could've tried killing her and Daniel any second. What's the worst Jules could've done without being tied up? Ignoring them?

The way she treats Daniel is certainly fucked up, but so far, we had no intention she's even aware she's doing it. She says sorry every once in a while after being exceptionally bitchy, but there was never a moment where she sat in front of the camera and revealed that she liked torturing the Beast. So I would count that as an indication of a dark side either - she's just oblivious to the fact that she's hurting him.

And what do you mean "Jonas's moment with the gun"? I don't know about you, but "protecting me and my friends with a firearm against very immediate danger from a fanatic cult" sounds like a pretty good idea, while "going into a minor's house and kidnapping her" sounds like pretty fucked up one. You will, of course, argue that Jules was just as much in danger, but from what I've seen in the videos, the only one endangering her were Bree and Daniel...

Lurker wrote:

Daniel's probably the moral center of the group, and - as Jonas pointed out - the voice of reason. In his case, I think that's why it's believable that he go along with something like this. I think it's believable either through making a character noble or through demonstrating that they have no problem with doing unethical things. In Daniel's case, he's been rather noble, and in Bree's case, we know she's okay with making decisions like this anyway.

Bree and Daniel's goals are certainly the same, though I can see them probably rationalizing this differently. Seeing what he's seen and knowing what he knows, Daniel felt it was the best thing for Jules, just like Bree. While she can justify it in her mind as "the ends justify the means" or "drastic times call for drastic measures" (she actually said this in a comment on YouTube), though I think Daniel's too good-hearted to have questioned that it was overall the right move. That's how I see him anyway.

I can see him feeling like it was a terrible thing to do and the right thing to do at the same time.

That may all be so, and I don't doubt Bree might have made him believe it was the right thing to do...but any compassionate man would've stopped the moment he had that screaming little girl in his arms. How fucking cold do you have to be to drag away a crying little girl?

He couldn't even stand somebody else treating Jonas that way, in a situation where he could easily have prevented Bree from actually hurting him - and you want me to believe that he could grab Jules, ignore her crying, drag her out, put her in the trunk or something, and tie her up at home, telling her to shut up?

Not ever.

Lurker wrote:

I would've thought that was a good move if they didn't already feel like she was going to die (which I so hope is what we find out they thought; it's been hinted at previously, so I do think that's what their concern was), but if it was the concern, I wouldn't want to wait that late. Just in case it was in a locked building, or there were tons of guards around. It seems like that's too late in the game to wait for something to go wrong.

Now, I'm not saying that the situation they created went well. It's gone terrible. I just think it was the better choice. In any case, now their only option for protecting her is to try showing up at the ceremony.

Lurker wrote:

If the Order did all that in the same way one fattens up a turkey for cooking, who sounds better then?

Still the Order. 'cause BD&J are still an immediate danger to her life and health, while the Order might just hurt her, at some date in the future. Perhaps. We think.

Lurker wrote:

Of course you can do good while doing bad. It depends on the situation. Sometimes it's right, and sometimes it's wrong. In this case, taking her as they did was better in my opinion than waiting until the room for error ws much lower.

Doing bad is not doing good. As I have detailed before, they could've prevented "worse" in many other ways.

Lurker wrote:

You're including all of the first scenario, but cutting half of that second one off. What you're trying to say here is "You don't kidnap innocent children, not even to take them away from people who you believe will murder them. Not if you want to consider yourself ethically sound." I disagree.

Disagree all you want, since that's not what I said, and I decide what I'm trying to say. Razz

At this point in time, they are no better than the Order. The Order kidnapped Jules right after birth, they kidnapped Jules right after school. Difference is, the Order at least didn't traumatize her doing it.
They have no right to feel all high and mighty if they're just the same. You cannot protect somebody from evil if you are the evil.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The Order did not harm Jules. There is no proof Bad Things would happen to her at the ceremony. So far, the only people who hurt Jules were BD&J. And all they achieved through that is that she'll love the Order more than ever.

Lurker wrote:

Dude, how would that be any better than this? If terrifying her by going into her house and physically removing her is so awful, how much worse would it have been if they showed up and shot the people who were going to take her to do something she was willing to do, and then grabbed her?

I don't quite remember saying anything about shooting somebody, but...okay...whatever you say... Eh?

Lurker wrote:

I've already mentioned why I think that's a bad idea, so I'll move on to the next.

And I've already mentioned how nobody knows anything about the ceremony.

Plus, I don't actually see that "small margin of error". Just send the cops. Tell 'em there's a rape going on, a drug deal or anything, and they'll come. Sure, the Orderites might come out cleaned, but the ceremony would've been disturbed, and nobody would've killed Jules.
And if it gets too close, or the cops don't show up...Jonas can still start shooting. He doesn't even have to shoot people - simply starting to shoot at all should be a pretty good disturbance, and make people run.

Lurker wrote:

She would have ignored it. She even ignored Bree on the internet.

I was thinking along the lines of duct-taping them to her front door at eye level. Kind of hard to ignore that.

Lurker wrote:

They'd have to get her to have a conversation with them first.

Pose as an interested fan of her blog, lead the conversation to her preperations? You don't have to be as undiplomatic as Bree is. Jonas could've done it.

Lurker wrote:

Okay, I hope that you're joking here. That one makes me want to laugh. XD

Keep laughing...until your parents avoid your look, and your father finally tells you you were seperated from your parents at birth and put into a controlled home.

Lurker wrote:

In any case, some of your scenarios seem to rely on them having a lot of time, and/or the means to actually approach the ceremony. Since they couldn't count on any of that (and may have even had a suggestion that time was short), the situation was much more complicated.

I don't quite see how you need "a lot of time" for spraypainting, duct tape or not-letting-her-get-kidnapped, or just generally disturbing the Order's peace.

Hell, thinking about it, it'd be as easy as talking her into sneaking out of the house...I don't think a violated purity bond can be fixed into this oh-so-short time we apparently have.

Lurker wrote:

Well, this relates back to what I said to TheeBerean. It was fine to have the obvious villains abducting the good guys with a blurry, confusing visual. To have then had the heroes abduct an innocent kid in the same manner would have been callous and would have trivialized the severity of what they chose to do.

I think it was important that we actually see Jules terrified of them, and important that we see her fighting back and unable to get away. Not because I enjoyed seeing it happen to her, but because it's honest. It doesn't downplay the moral quandry at hand. It doesn't ask you to dismiss what was happening and just focus on what comes next.

"Wanna get pizza?"
I don't know if we saw different videos, but Daniel's blogging in front of her tied up body did exactly that for me...they dragged her out of her home, kicking and screaming, tied her up...and then just kept on blogging, no matter what. And complaining that she's being unreasonable. Stupid little bitch. They go through all the trouble of kidnapping her, and how does she thank them? Escapes. What the f**k was she thinking? Now they might actually go to jail for kidnapping a teenage girl!

Lurker wrote:

It forced us to look at the act itself and ask "Was that really the right thing?" It asked us to ponder what we would do. It acknowledged on its own that what was happening was horrible, but asked us to consider whether it was also right.

Whoever actually has to think about whether kidnapping teenage girls is right has a fucked up sense of morale to begin with. Especially after seeing Daniel drag her out.

Lurker wrote:

This comment from you makes me still feel like you're uncomfortable with moving away from the archetype. I believe you when you say you can appreciate grey areas, but I get the feeling that you're nonetheless uncomfortable with them when they're not at least presented more gracefully on the part of the good guys.

No, absolute not. I am "uncomfortable" with the fact that it just doesn't fit the characters. Had they been built up, had there been a lead-up to this action, everything would be fine. But as it stands, they just so, from one moment to another, decided to kidnap a little girl. And that just doesn't match the characters developed so far.

Example: They could've played it like this: Have a video after "We Found Julia!!!"; comment mentions how Taylor and Sarah went back home, and they discussed what to do. Video shows part of that discussion. They talk about several options, up to a point where Jonas jokingly suggests:
Jonas: ...maybe we should just kidnap her and sit it out. It'd be so much easier.
Daniel (laughing): We could brain-wash her and send her back as a double agent!
[both laugh]
[cut to Bree alone]
Bree: What Jonas said there actually made me think. I don't want to hurt Julia or anything, but...if the only choice is to either lock her up or let her go with the Order, we might not have a choice. *sigh* Oh well...guess I'll check on the boys...I think they're already trying to help Daniel remember how the Order brain-washed him. *rolls eyes*
[End]

...see? A simple lead-up would've put the entire next video into a much more reasonable context. Bringing the idea up as an off-beat comment would fit the guys, then realizing how it might be a viable option if they have no other choice is perfectly reasonable, and Bree explaining how she doesn't really want to do it, but might have no other choice, shows that she didn't just go insane, but thought hard about it. The beginning of the next video then implies that they decided there was no other way.

Just a little perspective, and all of a sudden it doesn't look like a total change of character. But noooo, we go for shock effect instead. We need more viewers. More people clicking ads. Rolling Eyes

Lurker wrote:

Maybe that's good, though. For those uncomfortable with it, that's what will get them to ask themselves if it was the right thing.

See above.

Lurker wrote:

The potential problems with what you suggested are that she might not listen when she came in and you shut the door (in which case you would have to physically hold her down and cover her mouth anyway just to get her to hear you), and her possible lack of the luxury of several days to think it over.

I don't have to attack her. I merely have to defend the door and windows until she sits down frustrated and screams "What do you want??". She would then listen to me, if purely to find out what she has to do to get rid of me.
And even if your implication that she might not have that much more time, it could just as well work to my advantage: If she feels stressed because of my intrusion, and would rather delay the ceremony for a few days in order to get her thoughts straight, but the Deacons force her to go dress up anyway, my words of "The Order doesn't care for you, only for itself." suddenly sound a lot more possible. When she then gets nervous when she sees their car, because she remembers how I told her she'd be as good as dead if she got in, and the Orderites push her further, even though she hesitates, my words just get underlined more.

And of course I'd be following right behind them, waiting for the moment she screams "help".

...and if all that doesn't work out, I can still snipe the Head-Deacon right at the ceremony, if it turns out violent and dangerous. Because shooting her attacker is also much nicer than just kidnapping her.

Lurker wrote:

Forgive me for sounding like I'm dismissing your concerns, but come on.

Let's put things in perspective here: The bad guys have kidnapped children, murdered people (some of them possibly children), brainwashed people (figuratively and literally), operate a religion for the sake of manipulation, and call "Do what I tell you or I kill someone you love" scenarios an excercise in free will. Yet - with the exception of one kidnapper who got shot by another person from the same organization - they've yet to suffer a single negative consequence. The organization as a whole is just peachy.

In fact, we've been told that they have police, corporations and politicians on their side. Added to that, the Order must be absolutely loaded if they can afford to raise thousands of girls in homes around the world from birth to adulthood. They're highly criminal and very successful.

Why aren't you questioning whether there's a message in that? Does it tell people that it's okay to be a criminal because you'll become wealthy and influential, and then get away with anything you want?

No, because that's what I was saying about law and order shows multiple times - they are the bad guys. The message sent is: Whatever these guys do is bad. Undesirable. And you have to fight against it.
"Fight corruption and kidnapping." is a much better message than "Let's kidnap people 'cause we can't come up with anything better.".

Lurker wrote:

You've gone from talking about morality to talking about the law - which does not go hand in hand with ethics. In any case, if you want to talk about laws, there are plenty of times that people should have stood up and said "f**k the law." Laws are supposed to maintain fairness for everyone, and they should consider intentions. The spirit of a law is more important than the letter, even if that's not how reality operates.

I am not talking about laws, I'm talking about consequences. Laws merely lead to the consequences I pointed out.

And just because you think laws shouldn't work the way they do doesn't change the fact that they do, and that kidnapping is a crime with consequences, no matter the intentions. Even if the kidnapper is acquitted in the end, he will be brought to court first. The police won't just say "aww, he ment well...let him go!". And even the judge letting him go would tell him that, although it was the right thing to do in that situation, in general, he doesn't have the right to just go and abduct people.

Lurker wrote:

I don't think promoting compliance with an unjust legal situation should be a message sent out by the series any more than you think it should be saying kidnapping is fine. I also don't think it should be saying kidnapping is fine, but I have no problem with it showing a kidnapping committed for the right reasons.

How would you like if somebody came into your house right now and kidnapped you, thinking he was protecting you, only for it to turn out to be a giant mistake afterwards?
After having been tied up for 72 hours at a strange man's house, would you shake his hand and say "Oh, you ment well. Everybody makes mistakes. Do it again whenever you see fit."?

If yes, you might be insane.

Lurker wrote:

And, you know, there's a reason that people cheered when Al Pacino's character in "... And Justice for All" launched a tirade against the entire court system in the last few minutes of the film, and there's a reason no one protested when Commodore Norrington relented on executing Jack Sparrow in "Pirates of the Caribbean." The average person would like to see compassion be the actual rule of the law.

I don't think I know "... And Justice for All". But I do know that Jack Sparrow saved Elizabeth instead of kidnapping her, only used her as a shield when her father and Norrington wouldn't listen to her (without hurting or keeping her, mind you), and then helped Norrington save her again, after she was kidnapped by someone else. Nobody protested because Jack didn't do anything evil. The worst thing he did was stealing a ship, and that in a nice (and funny) way.

BD&J are child abductors. That's quite a different league, and not nice (or funny) at all.

Lurker wrote:

Instead of asking "What kind of message does this send to people where breaking the law is concerned?" I would be asking why the system isn't more concerned with asking "Why did you commit the crime?" - but that's a question that lays outside LG15 and this discussion.

Oh, the famous "I had a bad childhood" defense. That doesn't make the dead bodies live again, and that doesn't de-traumatize the hostages. Committing a crime is a committing a crime. If the law was really wrong, people would uprise on their own. All you'll get with your system is a whole shitload of people thinking they're above the law, because they are the only ones really understanding how the world works.

Religious zealots would have a high time.

Lurker wrote:

In any case, give people more credit than that. No one who is old enough to actually pull off a kidnapping and watches this is going to think that LG15's heroes committing a justified one (even if they face no negative consequences for it) means that there's no legal ramifications for them doing the same, or that the morality of it isn't determined by the situation. If they do, it's their parents' fault for not trying to educate them.

But they could suddenly get the idea that, even though they might face charges, a kidnapping might be the right thing to do.

Lurker wrote:

I didn't see her die at their hands.

I didn't see hear screaming, kicking and crying before she met Bree.
...and I didn't see the Order fake-killing Bree in the fake ceremony, either.

Lurker wrote:

Would you stick around there and wait for her parents to show up?

Actually, with Jonas's Glock, that could've lead to some nice confessions that'd have made a much deeper, more positive impact on Jules than being tied up and screamed at.

But then again, I wouldn't have kidnapped her in the first place.

Lurker wrote:

I disagree. If we have to agree to do so, we just will, but their decision remains the morally superior in my eyes.

Remind me to keep my future children away from you.

No second reading since I have to get up in five hours. Who finds mistakes may keep them.
_________________
[ YouTube Profile ] [ Dawson's Cove ]

Every time you score a goal, a starving child in Africa dies.

sack36
Devoted Fan

Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 549

Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 6:42 pm Post subject:

It seems the two of you are fighting over what was the right way to handle the situation. If I'm wrong on that, I apologize. But really the situation was being handled by a 17 year old and her two lap dogs. (sorry, D&J, I love you both but sometimes you act like you don't know she's the youngest!). At 15 a teen looses all sensibilities, all logic, all brain activity. They generally don't gain it back until about 21 for girls, and sometimes never for boys. (OK, ok, about 27 to 30 maybe! ) Between 15 and 21(27) all brain activity is being routed through their hormones. It's amazing they can walk and talk at the same time! I can totally believe these walking piles of raging hormones came up with this cockamamie idea!

Lurker
Guest

Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 11:30 pm Post subject:

Renegade wrote:

Lurker wrote:

I disagree. If we have to agree to do so, we just will, but their decision remains the morally superior in my eyes.

Remind me to keep my future children away from you.

I don't randomly take people's kids.

Renegade wrote:

Yeah...right...'cause the way the characters handled it emphasized so much what a big deal it is. What was that? "What's the worst that could happen?" "Wanna get pizza?"

That's not how it went down and you know it. If Jonas had said that while doing it or immediately after, I would say they trivialized it. When Jonas said it, it was after Jules had ran away, after they'd looked for, and after he'd suggested they go with your suggestion of crashing the ceremony. He was also trying to cheer Bree up.

"What's the worst that could happen?" came off as irony to me. Maybe I interpreted it wrong, but that's what I thought it was supposed to be. Giving the audience exactly the opposite of what was suggested, if you get me. I mean, we immediately go from Jonas providing comic relief to a screaming girl being dragged by Daniel.

Renegade wrote:

Maybe she did, but that isn't reasonable of her after days of having him as her prisoner (someone at her mercy). Deciding to leave him tied up and alone would be choosing to let him die, and not in self-defense. She had to know that. She didn't even really seem to be in the grip of fury on the day he escaped, though she still planned to leave him at that point.

Renegade wrote:

Had she been right, Jonas could've tried killing her and Daniel any second. What's the worst Jules could've done without being tied up? Ignoring them?

Run away? Try to get a knife from the kitchen?

Renegade wrote:

The way she treats Daniel is certainly fucked up, but so far, we had no intention she's even aware she's doing it. She says sorry every once in a while after being exceptionally bitchy, but there was never a moment where she sat in front of the camera and revealed that she liked torturing the Beast. So I would count that as an indication of a dark side either - she's just oblivious to the fact that she's hurting him.

Fair enough.

Renegade wrote:

And what do you mean "Jonas's moment with the gun"? I don't know about you, but "protecting me and my friends with a firearm against very immediate danger from a fanatic cult" sounds like a pretty good idea, while "going into a minor's house and kidnapping her" sounds like pretty fucked up one.

Yeah, having the gun was fine, and so was pulling it out. I guess this isn't even an example of a dark side per se (he was out of his mind at the time), but Jonas put the gun in Daniel's face, and he even said he pointed it at Bree too. I'm just saying, he hasn't been presented without fault either.

Renegade wrote:

You will, of course, argue that Jules was just as much in danger, but from what I've seen in the videos, the only one endangering her were Bree and Daniel...

How's that? Unless she had a weak heart, she was in no danger from them.

Renegade wrote:

My feelings are different. I feel like one would have to be cold to not do it if it came down to that or waiting to crash the ceremony.

Renegade wrote:

He couldn't even stand somebody else treating Jonas that way, in a situation where he could easily have prevented Bree from actually hurting him - and you want me to believe that he could grab Jules, ignore her crying, drag her out, put her in the trunk or something, and tie her up at home, telling her to shut up?

Not ever.

I guess we can agree to disagree on that point. It's easy for me to believe.

Renegade wrote:

Still the Order. 'cause BD&J are still an immediate danger to her life and health, while the Order might just hurt her, at some date in the future. Perhaps. We think.

How in the world are they a danger to her life? Other than convincing her not to do the ceremony being the second most-immediate threat to her life, I mean.

Renegade wrote:

Doing bad is not doing good.

I didn't say doing bad is doing good. I said one can do good while doing bad. Cause and effect, not the act itself.

That doesn't make the act less bad, no, but it's silly to say that bad actions can't have good results.

Lurker wrote:

Renegade wrote:

Disagree all you want, since that's not what I said, and I decide what I'm trying to say. Razz

That's the scenario we were talking about, though, Renegade.

Renegade wrote:

They're hardly evil. In any case, we don't hear them patting themselves on the back for doing this, so I don't see how they're acting high and mighty.

Renegade wrote:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The Order did not harm Jules. There is no proof Bad Things would happen to her at the ceremony.

You don't think there's even the slightest indication that this thing is bad news?

Renegade wrote:

So far, the only people who hurt Jules were BD&J. And all they achieved through that is that she'll love the Order more than ever.

Yes, this is a problem.

Lurker wrote:

Renegade wrote:

I don't quite remember saying anything about shooting somebody, but...okay...whatever you say... Eh?

You said they could have waited to pull the kidnapping when the Order was about to take her to the ceremony. How else would they have gotten her away from those guys? They'd be asking for a firefight.

Lurker wrote:

Renegade wrote:

I've already mentioned why I think that's a bad idea, so I'll move on to the next.

And I've already mentioned how nobody knows anything about the ceremony.

So we shouldn't consider anything that Gemma or Tachyon said relating to it? We weren't told anything about the ceremony itself, no, but by talking about stuff that people did as a result, it seems fair to me to infer.

Renegade wrote:

Plus, I don't actually see that "small margin of error". Just send the cops. Tell 'em there's a rape going on, a drug deal or anything, and they'll come. Sure, the Orderites might come out cleaned, but the ceremony would've been disturbed, and nobody would've killed Jules.

Are you talking about sending them to the ceremony itself? That seems like a fairly risky scenario to me. If they waited that late, I mean.

Assuming the police haven't already been told not to interfere at a certain place at a certain time, and assuming they don't get there way too late, what happens when they find no rape? What if it's happening in a locked building? They can't just barge in without reasonable suspicion.

Also, let's say they did tell them about a drug deal a few days in advance: If they can't give them a location, what then?

Renegade wrote:

And if it gets too close, or the cops don't show up...Jonas can still start shooting. He doesn't even have to shoot people - simply starting to shoot at all should be a pretty good disturbance, and make people run.

Ehh, maybe, but that puts us back at shooting people to kidnap her (and risks killing her in the process). I'd assume there'd be people shooting back too.

Lurker wrote:

Renegade wrote:

She would have ignored it. She even ignored Bree on the internet.

I was thinking along the lines of duct-taping them to her front door at eye level. Kind of hard to ignore that.

I'm not saying ignore them in the sense that she would overlook them. I mean she may not pay any attention. She responded to other people who sent her messages, but not Bree.

Renegade wrote:

Lurker wrote:

They'd have to get her to have a conversation with them first.

Pose as an interested fan of her blog, lead the conversation to her preperations? You don't have to be as undiplomatic as Bree is. Jonas could've done it.

Maybe that would have worked. I still think she'd have become distressed when the subject turned to her religion being a front for a malevolent organization, but maybe it would have gone a little better than Bree's first in-person attempt.

Renegade wrote:

Lurker wrote:

Okay, I hope that you're joking here. That one makes me want to laugh. XD

Keep laughing...until your parents avoid your look, and your father finally tells you you were seperated from your parents at birth and put into a controlled home.

I was laughing more in the sense of what a screwed up prank it would look like to spraypaint that on someone's house, but you make it sound like it would be so easy. I mean, even assuming these guys feel guilt over adopting and raising Jules, one of them will just randomly spill that she's adopted the first time someone brings up adoption?

Renegade wrote:

Lurker wrote:

I don't quite see how you need "a lot of time" for spraypainting, duct tape or not-letting-her-get-kidnapped, or just generally disturbing the Order's peace.

I was referring to waiting days on the off-chance that a seed of doubt actually took root and grew, but there's other problems with that other stuff (already mentioned).

Renegade wrote:

Hell, thinking about it, it'd be as easy as talking her into sneaking out of the house...

Why do we think that would be easy?

Renegade wrote:

Did you listen to what Daniel was saying? If he was talking about "Spider-Man 3," I guess I'd follow your meaning, but he was talking about the situation and how fucked up it was.

Renegade wrote:

And complaining that she's being unreasonable. Stupid little bitch. They go through all the trouble of kidnapping her, and how does she thank them? Escapes. What the f**k was she thinking? Now they might actually go to jail for kidnapping a teenage girl!

What are you talking about? I don't remember them complaining about it all. Bree's been lamenting over it, but that's not the same thing. It's like "I asked this girl out, but she said no. Dammit, this sucks." That's lamenting. "That stupid bitch. I hope she fucking dies. I've been nice to her and she owes me. She doesn't deserve me anyway" would be complaining.

Renegade wrote:

Whoever actually has to think about whether kidnapping teenage girls is right has a fucked up sense of morale to begin with. Especially after seeing Daniel drag her out.

Exactly! If the new video loaded and she just happened to be there with them, it wouldn't have hit as hard.

It would have just been "Oh, they went and got her. Well, you do what you gotta do. So ... what are they going to do when the Order notices she's missing?"

If it hadn't been made into a big deal within the narrative, it wouldn't be such a big one outside of it either. Again, talking about Jack Sparrow, his use of Elizabeth as a shield was not considered a big deal by anyone because it wasn't presented as a big deal. We weren't really asked to remember him for that or think about it as a defining aspect of his character.

Renegade wrote:

That wouldn't have trivialized it?

Renegade wrote:

...see? A simple lead-up would've put the entire next video into a much more reasonable context. Bringing the idea up as an off-beat comment would fit the guys, then realizing how it might be a viable option if they have no other choice is perfectly reasonable, and Bree explaining how she doesn't really want to do it, but might have no other choice, shows that she didn't just go insane, but thought hard about it. The beginning of the next video then implies that they decided there was no other way.

You don't think they would have talked about it first? I mean, Jonas was against it the moment the video started, and he's still not happy about it.

Renegade wrote:

I don't have to attack her.

I said bind her and prevent her from screaming, not attack her.

Renegade wrote:

I merely have to defend the door and windows until she sits down frustrated and screams "What do you want??". She would then listen to me, if purely to find out what she has to do to get rid of me.

And she's not going to try hitting back in that time? You're not going to have to grab her if only to make her stop trying to hurt you?

Not long ago, you were the very one saying that someone in terror will react with violence even if they believe they have no chance. I don't know if you watch anime, but "The cornered mouse attacks the cat, even knowing the cat has the upper hand."

Renegade wrote:

And even if your implication that she might not have that much more time ... than just kidnapping her.

I still see holes in the getting her to listen part and in assuming that you'll be able to watch the ceremony part. Besides, it would come down to the wire in that case too. Really, even giving her doubts wouldn't matter until she was already on her way to the ceremony. This isn't going to stop her from getting near it.

Renegade wrote:

It's also a lot easier and doesn't require the heroes to make complex moral decisions. An additional set of messages that sends after it's done enough times is that right and wrong decisions are always obvious, that bad guys make mean decisions, and that good guys always get to make obvious, highly ethical moral decisions.

Renegade wrote:

I see the point you're making here. It seems like a good way to tie the series up in Nothing Land of Pointlessness for months, though. Jonas addressed everything that having them get arrested would in his constant worrying about it/references to it.

Renegade wrote:

If you knew my past a little better, you might not have asked me that question, but that's not your fault. In any case, yeah, I would. Call me insane, if you like, but disagreeing with you here doesn't make me so (though I'll concede that I might be anyway). I do think people's intentions matter, and it's kind of hard to kick someone in the face when they put themselves at risk for your own ass.

Renegade wrote:

He also didn't seem interested in helping rescue Elizabeth until after he found out Will's last name, kind of manipulated everyone involved, helped the bad guys catch up with Will and Elizabeth after they'd escaped the first time, and still kidnapped Elizabeth ever so briefly (and there entirely for his own benefit).

But overall, he was a good person who didn't want harm to befall the other good people (at least in the first film), and should have been released without Will putting it all on the line as he did. Jack was still less noble than BD&J are being here, but he wasn't a bad person, and neither are they.

Renegade wrote:

BD&J are child abductors. That's quite a different league, and not nice (or funny) at all.

I don't think humor was what they were going for.

Renegade wrote:

Lurker wrote:

Oh, the famous "I had a bad childhood" defense. That doesn't make the dead bodies live again, and that doesn't de-traumatize the hostages.

I didn't bring up that defense ...

Renegade wrote:

Committing a crime is a committing a crime. If the law was really wrong, people would uprise on their own.

If I didn't know from your location marker, I'd know from this statement that you don't live in the United States. Hell, we've got a president and a group of flunkies who will even openly circumvent the good laws at times while they rub everyone's faces in the bad ones. People don't rise up because of 1) fear, 2) lack of resources, 3) a largely inattentive population to begin with, and 4) a largely uninformed population. They're much less informed today than they were even 30 years ago when Al Pacino got audiences on their feet and their hands clapping, much less 230 years ago when guys like Thomas Paine got people to take muskets in their hands and do something very, very stupid (brave, yes, but stupid as f**k).

Renegade wrote:

Religious zealots would have a high time.

They already do.

Renegade wrote:

Lurker wrote:

But they could suddenly get the idea that, even though they might face charges, a kidnapping might be the right thing to do.

And LG15 is somehow going to make the difference in all that? What?

I thought you were a gamer. Do you really think "Vice City" has made anyone who wouldn't have already thought of something like it decide to take a chainsaw to someone whose loose lips got their coke deal ruined?

Renegade wrote:

I didn't see hear screaming, kicking and crying before she met Bree.

And that's so much worse than being betrayed by the people you've trusted your whole life?

Renegade wrote:

...and I didn't see the Order fake-killing Bree in the fake ceremony, either.

"Fake ceremony" implies that it's the real deal?

Renegade wrote:

Lurker wrote:

Would you stick around there and wait for her parents to show up?

Actually, with Jonas's Glock, that could've lead to some nice confessions that'd have made a much deeper, more positive impact on Jules than being tied up and screamed at.

Confessions at gunpoint? That's not going to make her believe anything, is it? And if we're talking about traumatizing the girl, Jesus, man.

Kasdeja
Hymn of One

Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 7754
Location: Back...and to the left.

Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 6:28 am Post subject:

SERENITY NOW! _________________ You cannot make another post so soon after your last; please try again in a short while. Bagged, tagged, sold to the butcher at the store.

Renegade
Enthusiastic Fan

Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 328
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 4:44 am Post subject:

Listen, Lurker...I could write you a long answer, but...let's face it: We know from last time we'll never agree. It's been four vids since this came up, the Creators are obviously not going to correct this or change anything, so...the discussion is moot. It's just stealing time. and forcing everybody to scroll for ages. (Which admittedly, is kind of funny.) We've both said multiple times how we feel, it is apparent we'll not be able to convince each other one of us is wrong, the Creators have the power anyway, so...why continue? It'll change nobody's mind. Not yours, not mine, not the Creators'. If you want a long answer, say so. I'll write one. I promise. I am a strong believer in not just breaking off discussions. I hate it when people just walk away because they can't think of an answer. But if you can agree we'll never agree (at least on this issue), I guess that'd be a much more efficient way to end this. _________________ [ YouTube Profile ] [ Dawson's Cove ] Every time you score a goal, a starving child in Africa dies.

Lurker
Guest

Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 11:17 am Post subject:

Yeah, that's fine. Fun while it lasted. Reserve your energy for next time.

Display posts from previous:

	Lonelygirl15 Forum Index -> Concerns and Complaints	All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Protected by Anti-Spam ACP