Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 98
  1. #61
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    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:
    That is why I think that at least one other important factor is the kind of weapons used. In WWI bombs were used and it was a matter of bad luck rather than skill and courage that got a soldier killed or wounded. Another reason probably is the noise of the bombs and the shooting. Arrows and swords are way more silent, soldiers shouted themselves (or used drums, etc) into adrenaline and to place fear into the enemy soldiers 2000 years ago. But only for the time of the attack. In WWI the soldiers had to endure constant noise and constant anonymous threat of life - quite different from how war had been before modern machines.

    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post
    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 your bayonets into people (or seeing your friends being torn to pieces by a land mine or a bomb) without being psychologically affected/damaged.
    It was standard procedure to kill the children of the enemy for most wars or tribal fights. If it is an instinct not to then at least it seems to be an instinct easily overcome.

  2. #62
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    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.
    It was what Oliver said to Felicity. Should he have told her Chase's constant babble was getting on his nerves and so he tried to get the fight back to the physical as he prefers?

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    And I have no idea what you even mean about explaining why Oliver was attracted to Chase.
    I don't mean sexual attraction. But he treated Chase more like he treated Slade in season two than, say, Kovar or Ivo.

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    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.
    A plan in which Chase is killed by Oliver, made by Chase? Why should it have been so important to Chase to be killed by Oliver? And if so, there would have been easier ways to get it.

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    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.
    One cannot always believe what Oliver says even to his friends. He also said he was willing to become Ra's al Gul but had a different plan with Malcom all the time. The possibility of tainting others he believed as we saw in the flashback drug scene. But the tainting had already happened, disbanding the team because of that now would not have helped his friends. I think he wanted to show Chase that he believed what Chase had said and that meant officially disbanding the team and hoping Chase would be satisfied. Which Chase was not and told Oliver. After that Oliver contacted Anatoly.

    If we look at the scene after Oliver admitted to Chase that he liked killing we don't see Oliver hoping to be killed or trying to kill himself because he couldn't stand himself any more or because of guilt (like in the island scene with Kovar's drug). Instead he asks Chase about keeping his word and letting him go. That is not how a broken man acts, IMO.

  3. #63
    Chlark Addict BkWurm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 08
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    2,687
    Quote Originally Posted by evaba View Post


    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?
    Season one it was realistic and I liked how Quentin still believed in the law in general, but saw that in some extreme cases like the undertaking, real justice needed the Hood's extreme measures. Then in season two when The Arrow stopped dropping bodies, Lance worked with him and started believing in him, even at his own expense. Season three continued like that at first, only now that Lance was in charge, his policy of relying on the Arrow to act heroicly for the city became city wide policy. Until he felt betrayed due to Sara's death and Oliver's secrets and lies and he yanked all the public support out from under Oliver. Policiy changed because of the personal. But again, when extreme measures were needed to save the city (from a league of ninja assasins planning to poison everyone , ok it was a virus but close enough) then he again broke protocol to help him. But as far at the officials were concerned, the Arrow was dead at that point already.

    It's interesting to me how while policy at the SCPD changed, the citizens of Star City have mostly kept on embracing the series of vigilantes. And in season four, with Laurel, the only repercussion of her donning the mask and working outside of the law was her dad losing his job as Captain because he knew about her.

    Season five was a continuation of this attitude of acceptance of the vigilantes in the city and was probably fostered by Oliver as Mayor. And an official being able to set policy is realistic in general, even about things technically against the law (Like in New York were they've made it a policy of not going after people that have a small amount of pot on them even though it's still against the law in New York state)

    I think if the GA had stuck to not killing, I think the attitude of the police department would have rang closer to realistic (since if what had happened in Star City the previous five years actually happened, you can bet they'd be willing to back ANYTHING that worked.)

    What rings false in season five was that between the start of the season and when the GA WAS once again an enemy of the law (after it came out that he'd killed Billy, a police officer) that the GA was once again putting killing on the table. It made sense (on the sliding disaster scale that Star City was every May) that they'd tacitly look the other way with vigilantes that weren't killing, but once anyone was getting murdered, even semi realistically, you'd expect that policy or no policy, the law would have to "technically" consider him a criminal again.

    Only that didn't happen until Billy was found out about. AND once GA reminded the public how helpful he could be, it was like a hand was waved and the whole shoot on sight thing was forgotten.

    I'm fine with the city letting them run around freely without trying REALLY hard to catch them (ala season three's manhunt) that part I think fits the rules the show set up, but there is a wishy washy quality that does bug me in season five, where at first they react like I'd expect, being upset about the GA killing someone, but then they didn't really do the work to explain why everyone was willing to drop it so easily. Chances are, the show runners ran out of time to really address it so just had Thea make a passing remark before Oliver's surprise party.
    Last edited by BkWurm1; 07-12-2017 at 09:17 AM.

  4. #64
    Chlark Addict BkWurm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 08
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    2,687
    Originally Posted by evaba

    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....
    That's actually something I've been complaining about for a couple years. They fast forward to the big confrontation but I find it boring because there's no build up or investment. Plus if they have to go out and gather info, we never know exactly WHEN the fight scene is coming since sometimes Oliver or Roy would be in and out with no incident. The show no longer lets mystery's unfold. Before Felicity would find some info, the team would check it out, we might get some fun parkour moves and then Felicity would work the new info. But I think the writers find doing this dull or pointless since now they skip it usually. It's lazy writing.

    I suppose they stopped plotting the details and steps to get answers when they stopped doing Bad guys of the week. I like big arc stories but sometimes the characters are more fun to watch when they are just going about their normal routine. Now the show rarely spends time on the routine, like they think we'd be bored by it.

    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.
    It's not as incongruent as you might think. The show's rules establish that Oliver's history of killing isn't a deal breaker for a relationship so I don't have to worry about that. The show showed that Oliver handles being in a relationship with Felicity very well. He's not short tempered, he's not cruel, he listens and opens up. I don't disagree that in real life someone that had that much trauma might not be so well adjusted but in Oliver's case turns out the show says he is for that most part. (Well it took three years to get there, but still.) So I suspend my disbelief while watching. Just like I do when the show says a 90lb Thea could hold her own and even take down Slade Wilson aka Deathstroke after only 9 months training.

    BUT, the show also showed that in order for Oliver and Felicity to work as a couple, they can't hide things or lie about them or shut each other out. Season three was all about Oliver shutting her out and how she wasn't going to put up with vague maybes or wait around until he got his head out of his arse. In early season 4, I tend to think that Oliver putting off his proposal plans was in part because he found out they weren't on the same page like he'd thought (Felicity working for the team secretly) and when Felicity bottled up all her fears and doubts she had a meltdown over Ray and lashed out cruelly. They respect each other's privacy, but big stuff HAS to be shared or we've seen they don't work.

    And the stuff with William was really big. On multiple levels and on both sides in how they dealt with it. Trust was the absolute basis of Oliver and Felicity's relationship. Like she said, she knew he was lying to her about all his crazy stories but she still felt she could trust him. And he trusted her later with his biggest secret. Hiding William and shutting her out of the process of figuring out something really big in his life broke that trust on a personal level. It broke the rules established for their relationship to work.
    And the show supports that it broke the rules by Oliver admitting that he should have told her and promising (and so far keeping his promise) to never lie to her again. Oliver accepted that he was wrong which lines up with the rules the show set for their relationship.

    So really, I'm not hung up on a real world thing for their relationship, just that it obey the internal rules for it established on Arrow. That real world rules for a relationship also happen to more closely match up with the rules on Arrow but do not match up with regards the view on killing, well that's just the way the show was written.
    Last edited by BkWurm1; 07-12-2017 at 11:13 AM.

  5. #65
    Chlark Addict BkWurm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 08
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    2,687
    Freawaru;8178299]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.
    Well, using the soldier comparison was to speak to the mindset of him and others thinking of his kills as justified and for a greater good, not if Oliver could pass the buck on responsibility in deciding who should die, but you could always instead compare him to some clandestine operative that has a mission and will do whatever it takes to succeed. That would put him more on par with someone running an ARGUS like organization that sets their own agenda.

  6. #66
    Chlark Addict BkWurm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 08
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    2,687
    It was standard procedure to kill the children of the enemy for most wars or tribal fights. If it is an instinct not to then at least it seems to be an instinct easily overcome.
    I question just how common it was since very often children were just adopted into the new ruling tribe or kingdom. It's what the Roman's did. (And yeah, it did backfire occasionally like when a kid from the Germanic tribes returned home and started fighting for them instead, lol) It's what was mentioned in Biblical times when Babylon overthrew Jerusalem (See the tales of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abendego) Sure plenty did die in battles and seiges and there were times when everyone was wiped out, but again, I don't think those were the norms.

    It was also a common practice for defeated enemies to be cast as slaves, but I understand that the more ancient forms of slavery (long before it was turned into the global African trade) treated the slaves as a part of the new society(the lowest class and with no rights but still considered part of them), even if it's a complexity I don't really understand or justify.

    So yeah, I'm thinking killing every child or everyone wasn't as pervasive as perhaps implied.
    Last edited by BkWurm1; 07-12-2017 at 11:45 AM.

  7. #67
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    1,127
    That's actually something I've been complaining about for a couple years. They fast forward to the big confrontation but I find it boring because there's no build up or investment. Plus if they have to go out and gather info, we never know exactly WHEN the fight scene is coming since sometimes Oliver or Roy would be in and out with no incident. The show no longer lets mystery's unfold. Before Felicity would find some info, the team would check it out, we might get some fun parkour moves and then Felicity would work the new info. But I think the writers find doing this dull or pointless since now they skip it usually. It's lazy writing.

    I suppose they stopped plotting the details and steps to get answers when they stopped doing Bad guys of the week. I like big arc stories but sometimes the characters are more fun to watch when they are just going about their normal routine. Now the show rarely spends time on the routine, like they think we'd be bored by it.
    It's nice to see that we can agree on some things! I also liked the "villain of the week" formula, because it gave a nice episodic closure and made the individual episodes more memorable. In seasons one and two the writers also managed to tie the individual cases to the Big Bad arc (e.g. the people on the List who were all connected to The Undertaking/Malcolm/Robert/Moira/Gambit Disaster arc). In the later seasons they seem to have forgotten this aspect in favor of a sometimes rather drawn out and repetitive Big Bad arc. In general I think there is also an over-reliance on quick, computer/hacking-related plot solutions in the Berlanti-verse. Computers and hacking are great devices for furthering the plot and providing exposition, but shows like "Daredevil" and the other Marvel series have shown that you can build great, suspenseful plots without this over-reliance on gadgets and hacking. So, I would really like to see the whole team out there doing legwork and gathering information, rather than being stuck in the lair until the next "let's all suit up and go fight somewhere while Felicity relays info to us through our earpieces" outdoor scene.

    The show's rules establish that Oliver's history of killing isn't a deal breaker for a relationship so I don't have to worry about that. The show showed that Oliver handles being in a relationship with Felicity very well. He's not short tempered, he's not cruel, he listens and opens up. I don't disagree that in real life someone that had that much trauma might not be so well adjusted but in Oliver's case turns out the show says he is for that most part. (Well it took three years to get there, but still.) So I suspend my disbelief while watching. Just like I do when the show says a 90lb Thea could hold her own and even take down Slade Wilson aka Deathstroke after only 9 months training.
    You know, maybe my problem is with the rules established by the show, because I find them incongruent, too unverisimilar and even somewhat lazy. What's the point of portraying your "hero" as a killer and presenting the whole "kill-no kill" dilemma as a real issue in some eps.... and then chicken out by not letting his killings have any repercussions for his own life or for his relationship with the woman who is supposed to be the love of his life? It's as if there is this big elephant in the room, but the writers tell us to pretend it doesn't exist so that they can go on with this IMHO rather cliché romance novel script, focussing on problems and conflicts which to me seem like pseudo-problems (I frankly never understood the whole Baby Momma trust issue). In my eyes any serious relationship between Oliver and a woman (regardless of her name) would have been much more interesting to watch if the writers had the cojones to actually deal with Oliver's dark back story and killings and how it affects his ability to be in a close emotional relationship with someone. On the other hand, maybe you cannot expect that kind of psychological depth and complexity from a CW superhero show.
    Last edited by evaba; 07-12-2017 at 02:06 PM.

  8. #68
    Forum Whiz
    Join Date
    Sep 14
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, Germany
    Posts
    974
    The points I was making by bringing up modern day armed conflicts was 1, not all soldiers return from combat damaged. To claim they return changed or different is like saying water is wet (again, doing so envokes an emotional response). You aren't the same person after experiencing a relatively harmless earthquake or bungy jumping, it's another life experience that shapes a person just as warfare is a life changing experience but it doesn't mean one is damaged. 2 is that soldiers aren't as easily excused of being called killers and murderers as they once were, that acceptance is slowly shifting since the Vietnam Conflict (words have meaning otherwise we could call it a 42km dash instead of a marathon. Calling it a conflict doesn't invoke the same emotional response as calling it a war and that is why it's called the Vietnam War, an emotional response is wanted when discussing the conflict). It's not voiced as loudly today among ones own military as in the 60's-70's because it's still not socially accepted but it is freely spoken of allied forces.

    I have likened Oliver to a soldier, but he is not a soldier in a traditional sense. Oliver is a combatant in a very disorganized war on crime, not a disciplined warrior who can work within a structured chain of command.

    On the topic of killing children, humans are animals and it's well documented that animals will kill the offspring of rivals so humans not doing so is a social attribute, not an inherent one. Now one could discuss if this social attribute isn't because it's basically a male trait and females are more inclined to protect offspring. As to the Romans taking in children and raising them as their own, lets not forget this was a time in history when slavery was not only socially accepted but actually encouraged. Not all slave owners were abusive, some were quite gracious giving their slaves many freedoms and even teaching them to be independent. Why not take in a child from a rival civilization and raise him or her as ones own? Is a slave more inclined to be loyal to a kind master who views their slave as one of their own family or a cruel one that instills a fear of betraying them? Slaves were seen as a socio-economic benefit (whether it was or not I think is clear today but back then you'd rather have your slave doing menial labor tasks while you yourself were able to sit around in bathhouses and discuss philosophy or politics. Everyone including all your neighbors have slaves, why shouldn't you? The Roman Empire was much to large for romans alone so slavery was actually encouraged. I'm not justifying slavery nor condoning it, simply explaining why I believe it was accepted) therefore not killing ones rivals down to every last child was still a social attribute balanced on an economic level, not an inherent one. Even today it's socially accepted to have an abortion, now one can debate if and when it's actually a child but if it wasn't inherent to kill offspring then socially accepting abortion wouldn't have been nearly as easy as it was.
    Last edited by DoubleDevil; 07-12-2017 at 05:12 PM.

  9. #69
    Chlark Addict BkWurm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 08
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    2,687
    but if it wasn't inherent to kill offspring then socially accepting abortion wouldn't have been nearly as easy as it was.
    I'm going to disagree. The people fighting to abolish abortion certainly wouldn't think it's inherent to kill offspring and the people having one I really doubt see their decision for whatever reason as some call back to the kill or be killed world of cavemen or barbarians or whoever. I don't think the logic goes there. You are right that stigma or lack there of influences society, but I don't think the specifics of attitudes toward enemy offspring apply in the case of abortion.

    Vietnam Conflict (words have meaning otherwise we could call it a 42km dash instead of a marathon. Calling it a conflict doesn't invoke the same emotional response as calling it a war and that is why it's called the Vietnam War, an emotional response is wanted when discussing the conflict). It's not voiced as loudly today among ones own military as in the 60's-70's because it's still not socially accepted but it is freely spoken of allied forces.
    Could you expand on your thoughts here? I don't think I follow what you are trying to say.

    I went with the term war because technically the US hasn't been in any war since WWII and so I think using or not using the term is just a technicality while the meaning of the word war IMO just means prolonged armed conflict between two (or more) sides which i think is more accurate than "police action" when it's not in the borders of the US (and the police are not involved) or "conflict" or which could mean me and my BFF deciding on Chinese food vs Mexican, lol. No intent to invoke an emotional response one way or the other.

  10. #70
    Chlark Addict BkWurm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 08
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    2,687
    =Freawaru;8178303]

    A plan in which Chase is killed by Oliver, made by Chase? Why should it have been so important to Chase to be killed by Oliver? And if so, there would have been easier ways to get it.
    Well I the best I could come up with was Chase was always a monster just waiting for a reason and his father's death was his excuse to do horrible things and he was so committed to his plan of making Oliver see himself the way Chase did, that he didn't mind dying. I guess he wanted to take away any sense of self worth that Oliver might have had from being the Hood or the Arrow/GA and if he could convince him that everything he'd done was tainted by the origin of WHY he wanted to save the city, then he could destroy the man from the inside which is worse than just killing him. And of course Chase was convinced that the reason Oliver put on the hood was not to save the city but so he'd have the chance to regularly kill, something Chase believed Oliver liked doing.

    So I guess Chase felt that even if he died, he'd still win if he could make Oliver kill him, thus in Chase's mind, proving him right and since Oliver isn't a robot, he'd have to live with the lingering doubts and I think Chase hoped to eventually drive Oliver to kill himself instead. (Hey, Slade nearly managed to that and season 5 was kinda, sorta, trying to emulate season two)

    One cannot always believe what Oliver says even to his friends. He also said he was willing to become Ra's al Gul but had a different plan with Malcom all the time.
    And later his plan was revealed. In the case of what Oliver confessed to Diggle and then Felicity, he never said, nope, I was only pretending to buy into what Chase insisted was true. We have the opposite, Oliver thinking it IS true and Diggle and Felicity telling him he's wrong and then over time, Oliver also realizing he'd been wrong to believe Chase. Or at that very least, that he wasn't that man anymore. There was no other plan or reveal or fake out. So I have to conclude that what Oliver said to Diggle and Felicity was what he actually was worried about.

    The possibility of tainting others he believed as we saw in the flashback drug scene. But the tainting had already happened, disbanding the team because of that now would not have helped his friends. I think he wanted to show Chase that he believed what Chase had said and that meant officially disbanding the team and hoping Chase would be satisfied. Which Chase was not and told Oliver. After that Oliver contacted Anatoly.
    I think Oliver was not thinking rationally about his team already being tainted by his "lie" when he disbanded the team. (As if he gets to decide anymore, lol) He was just being reactionary to now thinking his "legacy" (a season five theme) was tainted and only brought pain.

    I don't think Oliver would have faked disbanding the team for Chase's sake because there was no way for Chase to know unless Oliver told him and therefore Oliver didn't actually have disband the team for real and he really wouldn't have needed to fake doing so without his team in the know of his plan.

    If we look at the scene after Oliver admitted to Chase that he liked killing we don't see Oliver hoping to be killed or trying to kill himself because he couldn't stand himself any more or because of guilt (like in the island scene with Kovar's drug). Instead he asks Chase about keeping his word and letting him go. That is not how a broken man acts, IMO.
    I actually thought Oliver asking Chase to keep his word and let him go was the act of a very broken Oliver. If Oliver hadn't been smashed emotionally in that moment, he would never have asked or believed asking would achieve anything. And Chase himself while torturing him said another death would break him but Evelyn faked her death so Chase wouldn't have expected Oliver to kill himself at that point but I don't think he'd have minded if he had.
    I don't mean sexual attraction. But he treated Chase more like he treate Slade in season two than, say, Kovar or Ivo.
    The only similarity I saw with how he treated Chase was he couldn't seem to stop him or out think him, not until he seemed to do so (thought that was Chase's plan as well, lol)

    Should he have told her Chase's constant babble was getting on his nerves and so he tried to get the fight back to the physical as he prefers?
    If it was actually true, yes, but since he instead confessed the other thing about maybe liking to kill when he thought they both might die, I tend to think that really bought into what Chase told him.

  11. #71
    Forum Whiz
    Join Date
    Sep 14
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, Germany
    Posts
    974
    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    I'm going to disagree. The people fighting to abolish abortion certainly wouldn't think it's inherent to kill offspring and the people having one I really doubt see their decision for whatever reason as some call back to the kill or be killed world of cavemen or barbarians or whoever. I don't think the logic goes there. You are right that stigma or lack there of influences society, but I don't think the specifics of attitudes toward enemy offspring apply in the case of abortion.

    Could you expand on your thoughts here? I don't think I follow what you are trying to say.

    I went with the term war because technically the US hasn't been in any war since WWII and so I think using or not using the term is just a technicality while the meaning of the word war IMO just means prolonged armed conflict between two (or more) sides which i think is more accurate than "police action" when it's not in the borders of the US (and the police are not involved) or "conflict" or which could mean me and my BFF deciding on Chinese food vs Mexican, lol. No intent to invoke an emotional response one way or the other.
    It's not the inherent ability that anti-abortionist are against, it's the moral issue, something that falls within the social acceptance and the kill or be killed caveman thinking Freawaru and I are pointing out is more about rival offspring so yes nobody goes with that idea to have an abortion (although one could say having an abortion after getting raped is doing just that, I'm neither defending nor condemning abortions, I have a relatively neutral stance on abortion yet lean towards pro choice). At a base level one could claim a female without a mate might see a pregnancy or offspring as limiting her chances of finding a mate so an abortion can aide in that way. It's a base instinct and very animalistic that I doubt anybody would openly acknowledge it as being “the“ reason to having an abortion.

    What I was attempting to say when I derailed myself was that the social climate is slowly shifting to no longer exclude soldiers from being labeled killers and murderers. Anti-war protests outside of the US do label US soldiers killers and murderers just as the protesters did in the 60's and 70's. This of course would be expected of those hostile to us but it also comes from our allies. It is only ones own soldiers that are spared today (and even there exceptions can be found) while going back in history not even the enemies army would get labeled as such unless one wished to instill fear or hatred. The move in the 60's-70's was an overreach, they believed they had the social backing to shift acceptance but discovered they were wrong. It's been toned down and slowed down but still shifting in that direction.

    The difference between war and armed conflict is a technicality and not openly declaring war since WWII was done also to evoke an emotional response, one less likely to oppose it. I agree calling an armed conflict a “police action“ is totally incorrect, nobody is the world police even if many do see the US as being such today (some see us as giving ourselves the position while others wait for us to intervene, expecting us to handle the problem). If you and your BFF have an armed conflict over chinese or mexican for lunch I'd be extremely worried, but you are correct and proved my point. It's just a conflict, nothing really to worry about. Both evoke an emotional response, intentional or not, and that is why I'm against mislabeling a conflict a war or vis versa. Take out the emotions the words invoke and you can react to the context in which they are used. Declaring every armed conflict the US has been involved in since WWII a war is generalizing very specific events (that's calling everbody african-american when the person is jamaican or nigerian).
    Last edited by DoubleDevil; 07-13-2017 at 03:34 AM.

  12. #72
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    I question just how common it was since very often children were just adopted into the new ruling tribe or kingdom.
    I can only hope you are right, because known history does not show this.

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    It's what the Roman's did.
    Only the chieftain's children and only because they were hostages and trained to accept Roman dominance and law (which at times failed).

    I can't say what was the norm but examples like Masada show a different way of treating the losers of war or raid: They ended up committing suicide, because they knew that their and their children's deaths would be slower and worse once the Romans got them:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    It was also a common practice for defeated enemies to be cast as slaves,
    As far as I know only for the big empires like Rome or Egypt. There is no mention that slaves would be taken in the Trojan war for example.

  13. #73
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    Well I the best I could come up with was Chase was always a monster just waiting for a reason and his father's death was his excuse to do horrible things and he was so committed to his plan of making Oliver see himself the way Chase did, that he didn't mind dying. I guess he wanted to take away any sense of self worth that Oliver might have had from being the Hood or the Arrow/GA and if he could convince him that everything he'd done was tainted by the origin of WHY he wanted to save the city, then he could destroy the man from the inside which is worse than just killing him. And of course Chase was convinced that the reason Oliver put on the hood was not to save the city but so he'd have the chance to regularly kill, something Chase believed Oliver liked doing.

    So I guess Chase felt that even if he died, he'd still win if he could make Oliver kill him, thus in Chase's mind, proving him right and since Oliver isn't a robot, he'd have to live with the lingering doubts and I think Chase hoped to eventually drive Oliver to kill himself instead. (Hey, Slade nearly managed to that and season 5 was kinda, sorta, trying to emulate season two)
    An interesting analysis and I do hope we get more information about Chase's motives and goals in season six because I feel a bit dissatisfied by the lack of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    And later his plan was revealed. In the case of what Oliver confessed to Diggle and then Felicity, he never said, nope, I was only pretending to buy into what Chase insisted was true. We have the opposite, Oliver thinking it IS true and Diggle and Felicity telling him he's wrong and then over time, Oliver also realizing he'd been wrong to believe Chase. Or at that very least, that he wasn't that man anymore. There was no other plan or reveal or fake out. So I have to conclude that what Oliver said to Diggle and Felicity was what he actually was worried about.
    But he only seemed to contact Anatoly after Chase told him it was not over. If he really believed that Chase was right, why contact Anatoly? And I don't buy that Oliver would not feel guilty of killing just because he asks somebody else to do it instead of doing the act himself. He feels guilty of not having been able to save Tommy and others, he would feel guilty if giving the order.

    I agree that Oliver believed that he "liked" killing - whatever he meant by "liking" is not clear though.

    Also, I meant that Oliver did not really expect to kill Chase when he shot the three arrows into the Prometheus, who was actually Billy.

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    I think Oliver was not thinking rationally about his team already being tainted by his "lie" when he disbanded the team. (As if he gets to decide anymore, lol) He was just being reactionary to now thinking his "legacy" (a season five theme) was tainted and only brought pain.
    Possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    I don't think Oliver would have faked disbanding the team for Chase's sake because there was no way for Chase to know unless Oliver told him and therefore Oliver didn't actually have disband the team for real and he really wouldn't have needed to fake doing so without his team in the know of his plan.
    It seems to me that Oliver though that Chase might know most of what he did. And he got inside the bunker and all, so maybe Chase knew more and had more sources than we know.

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    I actually thought Oliver asking Chase to keep his word and let him go was the act of a very broken Oliver. If Oliver hadn't been smashed emotionally in that moment, he would never have asked or believed asking would achieve anything.
    I saw it differently. But I guess we will never know.

  14. #74
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    The only similarity I saw with how he treated Chase was he couldn't seem to stop him or out think him, not until he seemed to do so (thought that was Chase's plan as well, lol)
    There was that but there was also a hesitation to kill Chase, ever since he knew that Prometheus had been trained by Talia. Talia was his own former teacher and I think he regarded her highly and saw Prometheus as a fellow ex-student. That is a connection different to most of his other enemies or victims. He could have killed Chase in his office after Chase let him go for example, but he didn't even try - and the excuse that he might be accused by the law if attacking the DA does not hold for me because he could always have claimed Chase attacked him or something like that. And even if not, he would have placed himself being mayor above Chase being dead - something I doubt Oliver would agree to. So he had other reasons not to simply dispose of Chase he tends to do with others. But instead of killing him as efficiently and without thought as others (such as the goons of Dinah's bad guy) he goes the "we need evidence" route. I mean, seriously? Chase put the police captain in hospital and they want evidence to put someone trained by Talia in jail? I seem to recall that Oliver once said normal prisons can't hold him - why should they hold Chase?

    Quote Originally Posted by BkWurm1 View Post
    If it was actually true, yes, but since he instead confessed the other thing about maybe liking to kill when he thought they both might die, I tend to think that really bought into what Chase told him.
    Slade one said that Oliver lies - that is just the way he is. And I think there is some truth to that. Oliver might have held back parts of the truth to spare Felicities feelings, whether Felicity wants that or not. Also, because he felt so guilty after killing Billy, he didn't want to complicate things. The facts were: he thought it was Prometheus and he put three arrows into him. The reasons for shooting and the expected outcome might have seemed irrelevant to him at the time.

  15. #75
    Chlark Addict BkWurm1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 08
    Location
    Land of 10,000 Lakes
    Posts
    2,687
    Declaring every armed conflict the US has been involved in since WWII a war is generalizing very specific events (that's calling everybody african-american when the person is jamaican or nigerian).
    I'm more inclined to think I'm generalizing in the sense of calling African Americans just Americans, so being more generic and broad in my use of the word even if there would be details about each event within the category. Though technically, I only specifically called Vietnam a war. And as for the definition of war, if you look, I actually said any prolonged armed conflict was a war, not every armed conflict. And I'm good standing by that strictly as a definition of the word without worrying about how anyone is recording history. But that's an argument about semantics.
    Both evoke an emotional response, intentional or not, and that is why I'm against mislabeling a conflict a war or vis versa. Take out the emotions the words invoke and you can react to the context in which they are used.
    And I'm looking at it from the opposite end, trying to level the playing field and remove the terms that do want to "guide" what the "appropriate" emotional response is. By calling all events that fit the same criteria the same name, it would allow a person to look at the facts first and THEN decide the appropriate concern for the event. I'm talking examining history where you have the Vietnam conflict that lasted two decades and saw the deaths of nearly 60,000 US troops versus for example the first Gulf War that ended in less than a year and only a comparatively small number of troops died (149). Official names of events don't always reflect the scope of reality.

    In general, I'd use the official name of something initially to make sure people know what I'm talking about but I was sure there wouldn't be confusion with Vietnam and it seemed counterintuitive to worry about specifically calling it a conflict when a) historically, it's viewed as a war and b) the reason it was being brought up (by someone else, lol) was to point to how the public treats soldiers returning from war.
    Last edited by BkWurm1; 07-13-2017 at 11:41 AM.

Page 5 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
  •