Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 98
  1. #46
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    1,127
    My problem with this analysis is that in this case most male humans of the last 10000 years or so were sociopaths or psychopaths. War, killing soldiers, killing women and children of the lands that were conquered was standard procedure for humankind for at least that time. Still, those men went home to their families and loved them. If we look back into human history we see a history full of killers, who on the other hand went back to their families and turned farmers, etc, again.

    I think the idea that killing humans is wrong and is only done by psychopaths or so is a new idea, a few hundred years old. The reason likely is that humans cannot kill each other as easily and without consequences as before because now there are weapons that can eradicate all of humankind. It started when wars and killings changed from the direct man to man fights with swords and even bows where skill was necessary to survive and win. A warrior could be proud of himself, and was taught to be and accepted as hero at his home after killing, when the years of training and his courage proved true. But anybody can fire a gun and kill. So once the efficient and effortless guns and bombs started to become the main weapons and killing became faceless and being killed a matter of bad luck the idea that all killing was wrong started to develop. Nowadays in our culture we are taught that from early childhood, just as intense as in earlier times future warriors, conquerors and defenders of their land and whatever crown there was, were taught from early childhood how good and right it was to kill the enemy (which included children and babies that might grow up to take revenge). So while we might say that there is something wrong with killers in our culture because the culture didn't work in them, in other times pacifists were considered the ones the culture didn't work in and thus something had to be wrong in them.
    You put forth some very interesting and valid points, and I'm sure that there are hundreds of books and scholarly articles out there that deal with this matter! However, I don't have the time to search them right now, so I'll just add some of my own thoughts. I think you are absolutely right that in ancient/older societies violence and death was much more present and visible. Hangings and beheadings were a popular spectacle, Byzantine emperors were infamous for killing off close relatives in "byzantine" (!) intrigues or blinding enemy warriors after they had been defeated, and the Ottoman Sultans were not any better (and there are many more examples from world history where rulers have commited unspeakable cruelties). In general I'd say that everyday civilian life was a great deal more brutal and insecure in older times, no matter where you lived or what class you belonged to (although it was usually the lower classes who were most brutalized). Of course, the two world wars and what happened in Soviet Russia show that unspeakable cruelties were commited in nations that belonged to the enlightened 20th century West or the Communist Paradise East, but in general I think everyday life was more precarious and cruel during earlier eras.

    Anyway, I don't think it was until the 19th century that Western societies started to embrace the idea that killing is an absolute wrong (except in warfare), even for the state itself...in many countries the death penalty was abolished in the late 19th century or in the beginning of the 20th century. What I want to say is that since the 20th century the stance of the law/the civil society towards killing has probably become more condemnatory than it was in older times: leaders of state cannot kill off their rivals, and regardless of the circumstances, a civilian who kills another civilian is considered a murderer.

    Now, I think that is how Oliver would be regarded by Real Life standards, i.e. as a murderer. If we consider that Oliver is not a soldier but a civilian, and that present-day Star city is not a war zone, he is a murderer according to the law. The world of "Arrow" may be a fantasy, but when it comes to legal matters things are still supposed to function the same way as they do in modern-day America. That is also the reason why Quentin was so adamant about hunting down the Hood in season one. In a sense it is a pity that this dimension has been lost, and that Oliver just can kill people without any repercussions nowadays…..because now he is supposedly no longer the murderous Hood, but the heroic Green Arrow. In the early seasons there was an interesting clash between Quentin's (as a representative of the law/society) sense of justice, and Oliver's vigilante sense of justice, which has more or less been ignored in later seasons.

    You focused pretty much on wars and warfare, and I would say that war is a very special situation, where soldiers can (or have to) adopt a stance that goes against everything they've learned as civilians (at least in modern-day Western societies). As soldiers they are SUPPOSED to kill (e.g. the soldiers in WWII) in order to win the war, and even if their role is more to protect (e.g. American soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq), "collateral damage" is expected and accepted. The way I see it warfare is a form of morally and societally sanctioned killing that makes it possible for soldiers to not view themselves as killers or murderers. I think that's also why they can return home and resume their life with their families. I do believe that nobody returns undamaged from a war, but that's another matter. However, once the soldiers return to civilian life, they have to follow the moral code of the civil society....which means that if they continue to kill, they will be considered murderers.

    I’ve already rambled enough, to I’ll try to sum up my thoughts. I believe that in every society, ever since the first humans, there has been a strong social taboo against killing. Remember that the “Thou shalt not kill” goes all the way back to the Old Testament. So, the act of killing has always been confined to specific, religiously or societally sanctioned contexts. For example, a tribesmember couldn’t kill his neighbor (even though he might have had serious reasons to do so), but if he killed someone from another tribe during a regular war between tribes, he was a hero. I think killing is such a threat to our survival as a civilian society that it’s only acceptable under certain very special circumstances. One might say that in today’s (Western) society there is a stronger prohibition or taboo against all kinds of killing than in older days, but that doesn’t mean that people back then didn’t discriminate between killings that were morally acceptable (and hence absolved the perpetrator from being brought to justice or from feeling guilt) and killings that were not. Now, to return to Frank Castle and Oliver Queen, I think they behave or function as if they were still soldiers at war, even though they’re civilians. That is quite apparent in the case of Frank Castle, who is portrayed as a war veteran. So, even if vigilantes like Frank or Oliver kill people, they don’t view themselves as murderers or psychopaths (which might be how they’re viewed by the rest of society).

    Since we’ve been talking about books in this thread, there are two novels by crime writer George Pelecanos which actually features a veteran from the war in Iraq (Spero Lucas) who becomes a detective when he returns home. In these novels he’s presented as an antihero who does kill criminals, but the interesting aspect is that when he takes them down, in his mind it’s as if he’s still in Iraq, fighting enemy soldiers. It’s pretty scary and very well-written. I don't know what kind of literature you prefer, but if you like hardboiled crime fiction with a social message, Pelecanos is one of the best. You'll also learn a lot about working class Washington DC and recent US history (e.g. "Hard Rain", which is about the 1968 riots in Washington DC, after the MLK assassination):

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/20....books.culture

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Revolution

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pelecanos
    Last edited by evaba; 07-11-2017 at 01:52 AM.

  2. #47
    Forum Whiz
    Join Date
    Sep 14
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, Germany
    Posts
    972
    I don't fully agree that in today's society soldiers are still excluded of being called murderers, returning Vietnam veterans got that continually from the war protesters for years and I believe that is one reason for the increase in diagnosed PTSD cases (not the only reason but a major contributor) compared to WWII and Korean War (I hate calling Korea or Vietnam a war, both were conflicts not wars) veterans. Today just about everybody “supports“ the troops, yet their very actions undermine the soldiers they claim to support (a nice piece of lip service because it's the socially accepted thing to do but they don't actually believe in it because soldiers do exactly what these people utterly despise) by instilling doubt about what they're doing causing mental conflict within themselves leaving them more vulnerable to careless actions which could get them killed or so mentally distrought and confused so they have trouble leaving behind that what they were trained to do. Yes Frank, and to a certain degree Oliver, do rationalize their killing by seeing themselves in a warzone, the “war on crime“, which has a degree of social acceptance. People still don't approve of one person being judge, jury and executioner but many agree that “to many“ get away with what they do. Daredevil doesn't kill but it's these criminals that have been tried and slip through the system unpunished that causes Matt to put on his red suit. It is why somebody under normal circumstances is against killing but will still cheer on a Frank Castle.

    Your suggested reading sounds interesting, I may very well look into it (I do have a disdain for anything heavily tilted towards what the author believes is morally correct).
    Last edited by DoubleDevil; 07-11-2017 at 02:25 AM.

  3. #48
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    You put forth some very interesting and valid points,
    Thank you. It is what I really love about Arrow: it makes me think and I am grateful that I can talk with others about these things.

    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    Anyway, I don't think it was until the 19th century that Western societies started to embrace the idea that killing is an absolute wrong (except in warfare), even for the state itself...in many countries the death penalty was abolished in the late 19th century or in the beginning of the 20th century. What I want to say is that since the 20th century the stance of the law/the civil society towards killing has probably become more condemnatory than it was in older times: leaders of state cannot kill off their rivals, and regardless of the circumstances, a civilian who kills another civilian is considered a murderer.
    I agree. But the question is why. Why now? What was different in 19th century that things changed this much?

    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    Now, I think that is how Oliver would be regarded by Real Life standards, i.e. as a murderer. If we consider that Oliver is not a soldier but a civilian, and that present-day Star city is not a war zone, he is a murderer according to the law.
    Is present day Star City not a war zone? I think Starling City was when Oliver returned as the hood. There was just a different kind of war going on.

    Anyway, when we look at Oliver's personality he is not really a child of our culture. Yes, he was raised in it but only parts of were integrated into his personality. "Killing is wrong" actually was one of those - as we saw in flashbacks season one he even had problems to kill a bird for food. When I saw this scene I felt with Oliver, same horror of killing an innocent bird, but I feel sure that even children of most times in the history of humankind would have considered this horror absurd and perverse. Humankind has been hunting animals for at least 300000 years (they found throwing spears of that time and remnants of butchered animals), that is pre-Neandertal time. So horror of killing animals is not a genetic thing but a cultural one.

    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    In the early seasons there was an interesting clash between Quentin's (as a representative of the law/society) sense of justice, and Oliver's vigilante sense of justice, which has more or less been ignored in later seasons.
    Yes, I loved that, too.

    I do think that Lance was wrong and Oliver right in this case, because Starling City's justice system didn't work at that time. That is why Lance came around after all. When Laurel's life was threatened because the justice system failed he practically ordered The Hood to kill.

    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    You focused pretty much on wars and warfare, and I would say that war is a very special situation, where soldiers can (or have to) adopt a stance that goes against everything they've learned as civilians (at least in modern-day Western societies). As soldiers they are SUPPOSED to kill (e.g. the soldiers in WWII) in order to win the war, and even if their role is more to protect (e.g. American soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq), "collateral damage" is expected and accepted. The way I see it warfare is a form of morally and societally sanctioned killing that makes it possible for soldiers to not view themselves as killers or murderers. I think that's also why they can return home and resume their life with their families.
    I agree. Still, the very fact that this works shows something about humankind. Speaking of fiction books, in Alan Dean Foster's "The Damned" trilogy some extraterrestrians judge the whole of humankind as a paranoid and psychopathic species, because they themselves are not prone to physical aggressivity and some of them even fall into coma at the very thought of physical combat. I think there is some truth here, in the sense that physical aggression is quite natural for humans, in a genetic sense. As far as I recall women even are attracted sometimes more to the aggressive killer/hunter/warrior type of man and at other times to the the caring husband/father type of man, depending on their monthly time of hormones. So, genetically, men should have developed both aspects, too, because it provided an advantage for reproduction.

    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    I do believe that nobody returns undamaged from a war, but that's another matter. However, once the soldiers return to civilian life, they have to follow the moral code of the civil society....which means that if they continue to kill, they will be considered murderers.
    Yes, but Oliver never left the war zone. Starling City was not lawful civilian life but he came back to make it that by eradicating every enemy.

    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    I’ve already rambled enough, to I’ll try to sum up my thoughts. I believe that in every society, ever since the first humans, there has been a strong social taboo against killing. Remember that the “Thou shalt not kill” goes all the way back to the Old Testament.
    Which is not that far back, considering.


    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    So, the act of killing has always been confined to specific, religiously or societally sanctioned contexts.
    I agree. Remember, that for most of humankind's existence humans were rare and full extinction quite a possibility. Every human was precious because they helped the survival of all.

    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    For example, a tribesmember couldn’t kill his neighbor (even though he might have had serious reasons to do so), but if he killed someone from another tribe during a regular war between tribes, he was a hero.
    It seems to me that at some point killing threatening predators and killing threatening humans of another tribe somehow became the same in the human brain. Just as humans likely went to kill a tribe of cave lions because the were a threat to their tribe they went to kill another tribe of humans who took their food.

    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    I think killing is such a threat to our survival as a civilian society that it’s only acceptable under certain very special circumstances. One might say that in today’s society there is a stronger prohibition or taboo against all kinds of killing than in older days, but that doesn’t mean that people back then didn’t discriminate between killings that were morally acceptable (and hence absolved the perpetrator from guilt and remorse) and killings that were not. Now, to return to Frank Castle and Oliver Queen, I think they behave or function as if they were still soldiers at war, even though they’re civilians. That is quite apparent in the case of Frank Castle, who is potrayed as a war veteran. So, even if vigilantes like Frank or Oliver kill people, they don’t view themselves as murderers or psychopaths (which might be how they’re viewed by the rest of society).
    I agree. For them "the enemy" is part of the society they live in. In Oliver's case the people in his father's book and others who were like them or protected them. The Hood (not Oliver) was not raised in a normal kind of war, and he has a slightly different enemy picture than a normal soldier. But still the Hood had a clear code of whom to protect and whom to kill, who was part of "the tribe" and who not. For example, if by chance a child had witnessed him without the hood break the neck of that guy in the pilot I doubt he would have killed it "because no one can know my secret".

    And I think that is one of Oliver's problems. Not killing in itself but having killed those he considered "my tribe", like Taiana and Vlad and Slade.

    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    Since we’ve been talking about books in this thread, there are two novels by crime writer George Pelecanos which actually features a veteran from the war in Iraq (Spero Lucas) who becomes a detective when he returns home. In these novels he’s presented as an antihero who does kill criminals, but the interesting aspect is that when he takes them down, in his mind it’s as if he’s still in Iraq, fighting enemy soldiers. It’s pretty scary and very well-written. I don't know what kind of literature you prefer, but if you like hardboiled detective fiction with a social message, Pelecanos is one of the best:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/20....books.culture

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pelecanos
    Thank you for the recommendations. I will go to vacation soon and was looking for good books to read anyway. I will check them out.
    Last edited by Freawaru; 07-11-2017 at 04:29 AM.

  4. #49
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,510
    I have been googling a bit up and down re: psychopathy/sociopathy (seems to be same thing) and there seem to be several official definitions. However, as far as I saw all of them included reduced fear and reduced empathy, in the sense that the brain itself was incapable of those.

    Does this fit to Oliver? I don't think so. We saw Oliver being afraid for himself as well as others both in the flashbacks and in the now. In fact, many of his actions were the result of him being afraid for others, protecting them. And even as the hood he clearly was afraid for himself, fear likely the energy he used to get high on adrenaline, etc, and afraid for others like Thea and Laurel and Tommy.

    As for empathy, yes, pre-island Oliver clearly had some deficits there, but I think they were the result of his upbringing, not because of an inherent incapability. The way he was raised did not encourage him to find out what other people felt, so he hardly used and developed this skill (except likely in bed with a woman ). But since his father's death he improved quickly regarding empathy, maybe also because he had to discern other people's feelings more consciously to survive (Yao Fei refusing to show that he understood English should have resulted in Oliver trying harder to discern the emotions of the man his very life depended on). He also started to identify more with others, Yao Fei first - that is why he so desperately tried to save him, and later especially with those in need of his help like Akkio and Taiana. Many of his actions came from a desire to help others, even criminals and killers like The Huntress.

  5. #50
    Chlark Addict BkWurm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 08
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    2,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Freawaru View Post
    . Killing and growing up are not separate in Oliver's case.
    I think they happened at the same time but are independent, meaning that if Oliver stops killing, I have no worries about him turning back into that dude he was before the island.

  6. #51
    Chlark Addict BkWurm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 08
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    2,687
    (Evba,)So, the if writers had shown Felicity blaming herself, or being depressed/shook up, or having ANY kind of reaction to what happened at Havenrock, it would have made her more human and more easy to become engaged in/empathize with in my eyes. And this could be done without any implications that her remorse or feelings of guilt have anything to do with her being really responsible or culpable. However, the fact that so many people died at Havenrock, by a nuke that she directed there, didn't seem to prompt any kind of discernable emotional reaction or change of behavior in Felicity....in fact, shortly after the disaster she was her usual upbeat/quirky self and the same can be said of the whole of season five. And the short convo with the Ragman seemed more like a perfunctory plot point to show that the writers hadn't completely forgotten about Felicity's involvement in the Havenrock disaster than a genuine character-building storyline or scene.

    So, my problem is not that Felicity was somehow guilty, and that she therefore should have been shown as more affected by the disaster. The problem is that the lack of emotional reaction makes her character portrayal less convincing and interesting. The writers keep putting Felicity through difficult experiences (being paralyzed, nuking a whole city), which are then quickly and easily resolved by a Deus ex Machina plot point. The result is that we hardly ever see Felicity struggle or having emotional reactions to whatever befalls her.
    I very much agree they didn't do enough with how Havenrock impacted Felicity. I even nominated it for most wasted storyline. I really liked Rory aka Ragman but they barely touched on what Felicity was feeling. I do think they showed some glimpses of what she was keeping underwraps, but they should have allowed it to be a bigger thing that weighed on Felicity more openly. And yes, they should have spent more than ten seconds in the following episode after it happened rather than skip to putting on a cheery facade. The fact that I have to just know that the cheery facade is part of her coping mechanism helps since it's what's she's done going back to Cooper, but it should have been far more obvious.

    But I do understand that the show doesn't star Felicty so she's not going to get more storyline to deal with her feelings no matter how much Felicity fans where begging for Havenrock to be dealt with. Personally, I blame the people who freaked out that Felicity was sad to often in season three for the show now refusing to let her be upset for more than part of an episode at a time. Havenrock was something that should have been brougth up more often and it's odd because per the producers it WAS part of her mindset influencing her to make riskier choices, but they only mentioned it in interviews rather than in the script.
    TBH, it's this lack of a normal human reaction that bothers me a bit about Oliver's killings as well. We may try to explain or analyze his killings and his killer mindset by applying what I would call "folk psychology", but I think that most psychiatrists/psychologists would agree that the ability to kill and then seemingly forget that it's happened (which Oliver has routinely done ever since his season one killing sprees) is the behavior of a sociopath (or maybe a psychopath). That's also why I disagree with Freawaru's interpretation that Oliver has learned that killing has consequences. If I'm to judge by what happens on screen, in 90% of the cases Oliver's killings have no consquences whatsoever for him (legal or psychological)...he just goes on with his life, as if nothing happened, without any remorse or thoughts about his own murderous actions or his victim's friends or family. I guess that's the main reason why I find his portrayal of the tender, caring boyfriend and husband/father to be a bit jarring. Of course this lack of psychological realism is hard to avoid in a series where the main hero is also presented as a killer (because that's what he is, no matter how much we try to sugarcoat his killings it or make them seem noble!)
    I just don't see the point of even trying to apply real world standards to the killing in Arrow since clearly in show, there are different rules for it than in real life. It's breaking the law, but most of the time, the cops don't mind. It's right, until it's wrong. It's super meaningful, expect for all the times when it doesn't mean anything. It's just not so much a stretch for me to accept that the stance on killing on Arrow is a very fluid thing. It's to me no stranger than accepting that Barry Allen can run faster than Superman can fly.

    Oliver's love life and the show rooting for him to have one even though he's made all these kills, has been DNA of the show since the first episode. I don't feel the disconnect five years later.

  7. #52
    Chlark Addict BkWurm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 08
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    2,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Freawaru View Post
    This definition of "like to kill" makes no sense regarding Oliver, IMO. In scenes like killing Chase's father and his men he simply goes though them, killing them, without cherishing the moments or something like that. If he would "like" (your definition) it, the way I like ice cream, he would have prolonged the experience, revelling in it, enjoying every moment. But he does look away almost before he shoots the arrows, never looking at his dying victims, watching them die or something. He kills as if he was weeding, creating a way through a djungle with a machete or something like that. And I think Oliver knows that. So if he worries about "like killing" he must have another definition in mind than yours.



    This makes no sense to me either. It was hardly the first time Oliver was tortured. And probably not the worst, too. The worst likely was the first time by Billy Wintergreen when Oliver had days of fever afterwards and also did not know how much damage Wintergreen did. Remember how he told his own victim on the island season four flashback about how he knew to give plain that will kill, that what will cripple, and that which is simply painful. He knew all the time during Chase's torture what Chase did and how much it would damage him or not. Oliver never broke or let anybody get into his head before. So why should he now?



    Handing Chase's father over to the authorities would have solved nothing but only lead to more deaths of innocents. It was no mistake by Oliver. He told Diggle that Chase's father bought all the judges before he went to kill him - and we saw how the justice system in Starling City worked at that time in cases like Moira or Jason Brodoure. I think Oliver stayed out of the green suit because he didn't want to get into a situation where he had to kill or hurt policemen. There was the "shoot on sight" order he gave himself after all.
    I don't know why Chase torturing Oliver succeeded when all the times before it didn't. The best I can guess it because it focused on something he was deep down afraid was true. Or maybe he was just super tired after 10 long years of constant traumas, but per the show Chase DID get in his head, so explain it however you want.

    And Oliver said he liked killing and since as you pointed out, he looked like he took zero pleasure in the actual kills, the only form of liking I can imagine is the satisfaction he'd feel later in what he'd accomplished by killing. Cause again, I DON'T think Oliver actually likes to kill, just that he let himself be convinced that he did.

    Klling Chase's father might have done nothing more than bump someone else up to the CEO's postition to continue his despicable plan to infect the people the virus and then jack up the price of the cure. At least if he handed over Chase's dad to the authorities they might have had the chance to get his crimes to come to light and undo his plan. In order to turn him over to the authorities, he'd have to have proof of his crimes.

  8. #53
    Chlark Addict BkWurm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 08
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    2,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Freawaru View Post
    How do you explain Oliver's strange attraction to Chase?



    If you refer to Billy I strongly doubt that. At that point Oliver already knew that Chase had been trained by Talia. And Chase was wearing heavy armor. A simply arrow (or even three) should not have been able to kill him, even if not seeing it coming as we saw that Talia taught her students, including Oliver, how to catch arrows from all directions. Also Oliver shot at the chest, usually the point of strongest armor. Even if Chase would not have caught them the armor should have kept him alive. Guess that is why Oliver looked surprised when the man he had assumed to be Chase was actually dropping after being hit by the arrows.

    I think if at that moment Oliver would really have wanted to kill Chase he would at least have used an explosive arrow or something like that. He did not intend to kill Chase, because Chase had told him that it was about much more than revenge. He had made Oliver curious.



    I don't think Oliver believed that. I think Oliver's main fear was that he would loose himself if he lost those he loved. Until Malcom told him how stupid this idea was.



    But he only brought in the Bratva after Chase told him so. I mean not exactly the Bratva but Oliver told Chase it was over, Chase had won, but then Chase told him it was not and he was waiting for Oliver's next move. He even congratulated Oliver afterwards about the Bratva move as if it had been a game of chess. Or likely like Slade would have done during their fight training when Oliver had done an unexpected move. Chase treated Oliver the whole time not as a victim of his revenge or even a strong opponent but as a student and Oliver fell for that, again.



    What kind of reason is that? Reverse psychology? He had killed Taiana because she wanted to, because she was a danger to many. Why not do the same for Chase?



    I think he didn't kill Chase because Chase had established himself as teacher. He hooked Oliver with telling him it was about much more than revenge, that he would show Oliver who he really was and all that. And Oliver really wants to know what Chase promised. So Oliver played Chase's game as best as he could, trying to learn what Chase promised to teach.
    Most of what I said in my post was said in the show, like Oliver trying to kill Prometheus but accidentally killing Billy. That was in the show. As was nearly all the rest of the stuff I said that you didn't believe like him beliveing for a while that him liking killing was true. I get it being off from what we'd learned about Oliver before with the torure, but it's what the show said.

    And I have no idea what you even mean about explaining why Oliver was attracted to Chase. Do you mean when Chase was pretending to be his friend? Otherwise, I never saw an attraction.

    Not killing Chase because he wanted him to was smart because Chase always had a plan and so Oliver was trying not to do what pleased Chase. He was trying to outthink him. It didn't work all the time. Like when he sent Dig and Felicity away because it went against his instincts.

    He brought in the Bratva because Chase was still a threat even after Oliver thought it was all over. And he himself couldn't kill him because Chase had convinced him adding even one more kill would break him. It's in the script. Oliver also thought that his whole legacy including his team was tainted by him perhaps liking to kill and using the hood as an excuse to do it. Yes, he wanted his team safe, but it was himself he didn't trust, which is part of why he disbanded the team. Again, it's in the script.

    We'll have to agree to disagree about the teacher theory. I don't agree with any part of the theory. But hey, to each their own.

  9. #54
    Chlark Addict BkWurm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 08
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    2,687
    The world of "Arrow" may be a fantasy, but when it comes to legal matters things are still supposed to function the same way as they do in modern-day America.
    I don't know about that. Every time something legal comes up on Arrow, I spend most of the episode mocking how off it is. Like Laurel being allowed to be the prosecutor at Moira's trial or going to see her without her lawyer or that fact that the trial only lasted a couple days. Or later when Laurel had to be reminded that DD attacking Oliver's Xmas party came with witnesses that could, gasp, testify at court! But for some reason, Felicity, a well-known CEO, wasn't a credible witness? So Quentin had to out himself working for DD. Or the fact that after the world found out that ADA Laurel Lance was a vigilante, instead of trying to have any case she'd worked on, thrown out like they did this year with DA Adrian Chase, the city instead put up a statue of her.

    Yeah, the legal stuff frequently is more illogical than the stunts. Which is really bad when you remember that MG was a lawyer, lol.

    =DoubleDevil;8178270]I don't fully agree that in today's society soldiers are still excluded of being called murderers, returning Vietnam veterans got that continually from the war protesters for years and I believe that is one reason for the increase in diagnosed PTSD cases (not the only reason but a major contributor) compared to WWII and Korean War (I hate calling Korea or Vietnam a war, both were conflicts not wars) veterans. Today just about everybody “supports“ the troops, yet their very actions undermine the soldiers they claim to support (a nice piece of lip service because it's the socially accepted thing to do but they don't actually believe in it because soldiers do exactly what these people utterly despise) by instilling doubt about what they're doing causing mental conflict within themselves leaving them more vulnerable to careless actions which could get them killed or so mentally distraught and confused so they have trouble leaving behind that what they were trained to do.
    Even in wars, there are such things as war crimes, lines that society decides can not be crossed no matter the excuse and it seems that for the Vietnam War, a lot of people saw the war (it's the easiest term to use) as unjust or unauthorized or crossing lines it shouldn't. And like in every war, some really awful, unforgivable stuff did happen. But people also realized over time how unfair it was to blame most of the soldiers that hadn't committed atrocities and with the draft in effect, they didn't even have a say about joining up or not.

    People still are widely divided about the "wars" that get waged but except for specific abuses, they try to support the individual even if they wildly disagree about the fight. Would it be easier if it was like WWII where the enemy was clearly drawn as EVOL! Maybe, maybe not.

    Somethings are a cultural thing or generational thing and for the men that fought in WWI and II, there were different expectations from returning soldiers. It's not like PTSD is a new thing, it just went by different names like Shell Shock, Battle Fatigue, Combat Stress or if you go back to the Civil War, Soldiers Heart and even the term Nostolgia was used to describe symptoms of trauma in soldiers.

    We also have to remember how often people with serious mental illnesses were sent away to institutions, self-medicated or just never talked about.

    War, no matter how much someone might believe in it, is an ugly, ugly thing that leaves scars.

    But bringing this back to Arrow.

    I think he started out with no support and gradually won over public opinion. But they are fickle. One mistake like Billy, and they turn against him. But at the same time, one win like identifying the Throwing Star Killer and rounding up...oh, I'm blanking on who GA turned over to be arrested at the start of the penultimate episode that put him back in the public's favor...restored him just as quickly to the public's good graces.

    Oliver is at a point where the public's opinion doesn't really matter except for how it affects his ability to do what he feels needs to be done. But for some reason, Chase's opinion got to him.

  10. #55
    Forum Whiz
    Join Date
    Sep 14
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, Germany
    Posts
    972
    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    I don't know about that. Every time something legal comes up on Arrow, I spend most of the episode mocking how off it is. Like Laurel being allowed to be the prosecutor at Moira's trial or going to see her without her lawyer or that fact that the trial only lasted a couple days. Or later when Laurel had to be reminded that DD attacking Oliver's Xmas party came with witnesses that could, gasp, testify at court! But for some reason, Felicity, a well-known CEO, wasn't a credible witness? So Quentin had to out himself working for DD. Or the fact that after the world found out that ADA Laurel Lance was a vigilante, instead of trying to have any case she'd worked on, thrown out like they did this year with DA Adrian Chase, the city instead put up a statue of her.

    Yeah, the legal stuff frequently is more illogical than the stunts. Which is really bad when you remember that MG was a lawyer, lol.



    Even in wars, there are such things as war crimes, lines that society decides can not be crossed no matter the excuse and it seems that for the Vietnam War, a lot of people saw the war (it's the easiest term to use) as unjust or unauthorized or crossing lines it shouldn't. And like in every war, some really awful, unforgivable stuff did happen. But people also realized over time how unfair it was to blame most of the soldiers that hadn't committed atrocities and with the draft in effect, they didn't even have a say about joining up or not.

    People still are widely divided about the "wars" that get waged but except for specific abuses, they try to support the individual even if they wildly disagree about the fight. Would it be easier if it was like WWII where the enemy was clearly drawn as EVOL! Maybe, maybe not.

    Somethings are a cultural thing or generational thing and for the men that fought in WWI and II, there were different expectations from returning soldiers. It's not like PTSD is a new thing, it just went by different names like Shell Shock, Battle Fatigue, Combat Stress or if you go back to the Civil War, Soldiers Heart and even the term Nostolgia was used to describe symptoms of trauma in soldiers.

    We also have to remember how often people with serious mental illnesses were sent away to institutions, self-medicated or just never talked about.

    War, no matter how much someone might believe in it, is an ugly, ugly thing that leaves scars.

    But bringing this back to Arrow.

    I think he started out with no support and gradually won over public opinion. But they are fickle. One mistake like Billy, and they turn against him. But at the same time, one win like identifying the Throwing Star Killer and rounding up...oh, I'm blanking on who GA turned over to be arrested at the start of the penultimate episode that put him back in the public's favor...restored him just as quickly to the public's good graces.

    Oliver is at a point where the public's opinion doesn't really matter except for how it affects his ability to do what he feels needs to be done. But for some reason, Chase's opinion got to him.
    Only going with one reply on this.

    First I haven't watched season 5 so what happened between Oliver and Chase I can't comment on. I gave my opinion on the subject of Oliver in regards to him killing.

    Second, warcrimes aren't accepted by anyone, again an emotional “feel good“ argument (just like we shouldn't kill) that has little substance from political war protesters, it's made specifically because almost nobody will deny it shouldn't be accepted and those that do one can point their finger at and call evil. Is a war “justified“ or not can be debated, what is most often done though is bash those the protesters oppose while condoning and defending those same actions committed by those the protesters wish to be seen as fighting for. At least true pacifist protesters are uniform and condem both sides equally. You can't expect somebody to stay focused when you cause him to question what it is he's doing, that's NOT supportive when that person's life is on the line. One doesn't risk their life for something they don't believe in and ranting damning commentary that can be made about almost any conflict (specifics are rarely voiced or they are so specific they refer to a singular incident and are then expanded into a generalization) can cause people to waver in their beliefs if they are repeated often enough or are thought to be held by the majority of those that should be supporting you.

    Finally, I used the term PTSD because it's the common description used today, not that those who weren't diagnosed with having it didn't have it. It's a no brainer for me to acknowledge that PTSD was a thing long before some shrink came up with the name.
    Last edited by DoubleDevil; 07-11-2017 at 07:53 PM.

  11. #56
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    1,127
    Even in wars, there are such things as war crimes, lines that society decides can not be crossed no matter the excuse and it seems that for the Vietnam War, a lot of people saw the war (it's the easiest term to use) as unjust or unauthorized or crossing lines it shouldn't. And like in every war, some really awful, unforgivable stuff did happen. But people also realized over time how unfair it was to blame most of the soldiers that hadn't committed atrocities and with the draft in effect, they didn't even have a say about joining up or not.

    People still are widely divided about the "wars" that get waged but except for specific abuses, they try to support the individual even if they wildly disagree about the fight. Would it be easier if it was like WWII where the enemy was clearly drawn as EVOL! Maybe, maybe not.

    Somethings are a cultural thing or generational thing and for the men that fought in WWI and II, there were different expectations from returning soldiers. It's not like PTSD is a new thing, it just went by different names like Shell Shock, Battle Fatigue, Combat Stress or if you go back to the Civil War, Soldiers Heart and even the term Nostolgia was used to describe symptoms of trauma in soldiers.

    We also have to remember how often people with serious mental illnesses were sent away to institutions, self-medicated or just never talked about.

    War, no matter how much someone might believe in it, is an ugly, ugly thing that leaves scars.
    This is very well put, both when it comes to how different wars are perceived by the public, and how wars have always affected those in combat, even though their syndromes may have differing names: shell shock, PTSD etc. In many people's eyes the Vietnam war was an unjust war, also from the perspective of the young Americans who were drafted to go to Vietnam. There was an overrepresentation of poor/working class blacks and whites among the soldiers who fought in Vietnam, while many middle-class youths were not drafted, either because they were in college or because their influential Dads gave them couchy placements far from the battle (e.g. George Bush Sr.). Creedence Clearwater Revival recorded a great song about this, called "Fortunate Son", IMHO one of the best anti-war songs ever:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEq51RZdU5c

    I've only skimmed parts of the book/dissertation below, but I think it gives a really good account of the men who fought in Vietnam, and the class system that sent them there:

    http://projectsmrj.pbworks.com/f/Wor...stian+Appy.pdf

    Enough politics/off topic for today! I just have one more comment:

    I just don't see the point of even trying to apply real world standards to the killing in Arrow since clearly in show, there are different rules for it than in real life. It's breaking the law, but most of the time, the cops don't mind. It's right, until it's wrong. It's super meaningful, expect for all the times when it doesn't mean anything. It's just not so much a stretch for me to accept that the stance on killing on Arrow is a very fluid thing. It's to me no stranger than accepting that Barry Allen can run faster than Superman can fly.
    I partly agree with this. However, I thought the show was more suspenseful and interesting when the writers actually seemed to care for a bit of verisimilitude by letting Quentin and the police force try to catch Oliver and put him before the law for his crimes. Even though you knew that Oliver would never be caught and put behind bars (because that would be the end of the show!), it provided a good conflict and captured the essence of vigilante justice: a vigilante is someone who operates outside the law, and therefore has to lead a double life and constantly be hunted by the official legal system. Nowadays this element is more or less missing, and nobody cares if Oliver Queen kills a few criminals, or if he's caught as his alter ego...in fact, I'm only waiting for the moment when Oliver Queen goes public and announces that he's the Green Arrow on a live broadcast, like I believe the SV Oliver Queen did once! Half of Star city knows his secret identity anyway, so who cares?

    I'm currently doing a season one rewatch, and there is another thing I really miss about the early episodes: Oliver actually does some sleuthing and investigative legwork/deductive thinking himself in order to find out about the bad guys he is after. In fact, this investigation carries the plot forward in many early episodes, just like in a good police procedural ("Lone Gunmen" is a fine example of this). Nowadays this element is also almost entirely missing....the information gathering part is mostly covered by having Felicity do a few keystrokes and retrieve all the info needed, and then Oliver commands his crew to suit up and go to meet the bad guys at some abandoned warehouse. You might say that Prometheus "ten steps ahead" shtick added some variety to this basic formula, but I still miss the more slow and verisimilar unfolding of the plot that we got in the earlier seasons. But I digress....

    My other point is that "Arrow" fans seem pretty selective about which real world standards they can disregard or shed, and which ones to cling to. Olicity fans obviously believe that Oliver can be a perfect husband to Felicity and a loving father to the upcoming Olicity babies even though he's killed some sixty men....his murderous past (and present!) is an insignificant detail that won't in the least stain or complicate the Oliver/Felicity relationship. On the other hand, many "Arrow" fans, regardless of the shipper preferences, get mighty upset and indignant over IMHO much lesser sins, like cheating or keeping secrets. In fact, I don't think I have seen any Oliciter metas where Oliver's killings present an obstacle for a blissful and harmonious Olicity relationship, while Oliver not telling Felicity about William is considerad a major fault, and something which must be rectified before Oliver and Felicity can resume their romance again.

    So, real world standards clearly apply in SOME cases (e.g. things you shouldn't do if you want to have a good relationship), while they are completely disregarded in other cases (e.g. it's a sin to take a man's life). I have no problem understanding this, because it's typical shipper logic: people block out the ONE thing that would have been a major problem/obstacle for a Real World relationship (the partner being a killer) and focus on the minor things that can be rectified.....and in this way they can still lose themselves in this (in their eyes) perfect romantic fantasy. And this applies to all shipper fandoms, not just Oliciters, because I don't think the few Laurel/Oliver shippers left see Oliver's killings as a problem per se. I just think that there is a flaw in this "it's just fiction" shipper logic, since some real world standards are clearly still considered pivotal when it comes to how a relationship is perceived or judged.
    Last edited by evaba; 07-12-2017 at 05:36 AM.

  12. #57
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleDevil View Post
    First I haven't watched season 5 so what happened between Oliver and Chase I can't comment on. I gave my opinion on the subject of Oliver in regards to him killing.
    I recommend Amazon prime. Since I have it I don't need to wait for the translations to watch my favorite series.

    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleDevil View Post
    At least true pacifist protesters are uniform and condem both sides equally. You can't expect somebody to stay focused when you cause him to question what it is he's doing, that's NOT supportive when that person's life is on the line. One doesn't risk their life for something they don't believe in and ranting damning commentary that can be made about almost any conflict (specifics are rarely voiced or they are so specific they refer to a singular incident and are then expanded into a generalization) can cause people to waver in their beliefs if they are repeated often enough or are thought to be held by the majority of those that should be supporting you.
    I agree. Much of the current PTSD (or whatever psychological problems affect soldiers after war) origins in our culture's disapproval of physical aggression and killing enemies. I doubt PTSD had been as bad a problem for soldiers or ex-soldiers at, say, the time of Alexander the Great. Or when one tribe went to war or raid against another. If ex-soldiers couldn't function after war any more war would not have been an issue in humankind's history. If killing enemies would have troubled humans our ancestors would have found another way to solve differences thousands of years ago. But 2000 years ago, when, say, Roman soldiers returned home to their families they were proud of their deeds and successes and the people saw them as such and approved of them as today people approve of winners in Olympic games. But nowadays, the more people "support" soldiers by bashing or pitying them the stronger the psychosis.

    Another difference between current wars and wars 2000 years ago or so are of course the weapons. This is why I doubt that if we want to analyse Oliver, comparing him to modern times soldiers is a good idea. He fights his wars hand to hand, this is how the Hood was trained and how Oliver lived for five years before returning to Starling City. His situation is more like a person having grown up in our times goes time-travel thousands of years back or end up in an alien culture on another planet and then return home.

  13. #58
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    I think they happened at the same time but are independent, meaning that if Oliver stops killing, I have no worries about him turning back into that dude he was before the island.
    He won't, I agree. He has changed to much for that. But if he had not killed he would not have started to develop.

    Look, a reason why I don't think Oliver is or was a soldier and can be compared to them is the chain of command or rather lack of it. Oliver never did anything he didn't want to because of a belief in authority (in contrast to Diggle). Waller forced him to kill for her by threatening Thea, but that is not the same as allowing somebody else to give orders one can follow without responsibility. Whatever Oliver did, whenever he killed it was his choice, his responsibility. He never just followed orders. He always had his own agenda and knew that. Even when he killed that guy in Hongkong because Waller forced him to, he tried to turn this around to confront her. In those "five years on the island" he started to learn to be responsible because he had to decide whom to kill and whom not. Whom to save and whom not. He was no soldier, he was judge and executioner in one, there was no sharing of power and responsibility.

  14. #59
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    1,127
    I agree. Much of the current PTSD (or whatever psychological problems affect soldiers after war) origins in our culture's disapproval of physical aggression and killing enemies.
    I don't think your theory really holds water. World War I is a good example. Those who chose to enlist in that war were regarded as real heroes, and there was a very strong patriotic fervor in all the European countries that were involved in the war. When the soldiers returned home from the front, either because they were wounded or because their time was over, the treatment they got from the civilian society was very different from how Vietnam vets were treated by some people in the US. So, if thousands of WWI soldiers suffered from shell shock or other psychological problems, the cause was the horrible conditions of warfare, and not the reception they got when they returned:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwa...shock_01.shtml

    I think the same applies to any soldier who has been involved in modern-day warfare, including the Vietnam vets or the soldiers who return from Iraq. I just don't think it's in our instincts to be able to watch children being napalmed, or thrusting bayonets into people (or seeing our friends being torn to pieces by a land mine or a bomb) without being psychologically affected/damaged.
    Last edited by evaba; 07-12-2017 at 03:50 AM.

  15. #60
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    I don't know why Chase torturing Oliver succeeded when all the times before it didn't. The best I can guess it because it focused on something he was deep down afraid was true.
    Yes. Chase focused not on getting information, revenge or giving pain, but on teaching Oliver how he really was - or how Chase though Oliver really was.

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    Or maybe he was just super tired after 10 long years of constant traumas,
    I doubt that. The show established quite consistently that Oliver has no problem with physical pain or being tortured. That was why Kovar used the drug on the island.

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    but per the show Chase DID get in his head, so explain it however you want.
    I do. And I see that those Oliver accepted as teacher (Slade, Waller, Anatoly) got into his head with torture while Fyres, Ivo, Kovar did not.

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    And Oliver said he liked killing and since as you pointed out, he looked like he took zero pleasure in the actual kills, the only form of liking I can imagine is the satisfaction he'd feel later in what he'd accomplished by killing. Cause again, I DON'T think Oliver actually likes to kill, just that he let himself be convinced that he did.
    I agree that he worries that he might one day. I hope that he learns what exactly he likes about killing will be addressed in season six.

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    Klling Chase's father might have done nothing more than bump someone else up to the CEO's postition to continue his despicable plan to infect the people the virus and then jack up the price of the cure. At least if he handed over Chase's dad to the authorities they might have had the chance to get his crimes to come to light and undo his plan. In order to turn him over to the authorities, he'd have to have proof of his crimes.
    Yes, and in a good justice system it would have worked this way. But as Oliver pointed out to Diggle in theflashback that episode and also we saw in season one and two Starling City didn't have a good justice system at that time. Even in season two we saw how easily Malcom (a well known criminal at that time) could influence it to do his bidding. And Oliver killing Chase's father was season one. There was no legal chance to undo his plan.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •