Buffys a killer

[Jill_Valentine]

I think Faith gets it a bit better after Orpheus... Angel is trying to atone for both the things he did without a soul and the things he failed to do with one. People with souls can still do bad things, as we've seen. Though I do get what you're saying... Hmm. It deserves thinking about...

 

[Cannon_Fodder]

Before I start, let me just say that this is a great thread.

While I don't think that I'd consider Buffy a murderer, she is in many ways a killer. However, the way she treated Faith towards the end of Graduation Day Part 1, has pushed her a lot closer to that line. The worst part, though, in my opinion, was when she was taunting the Mayor with the blood-stained knife. As much as I loved and admired Buffy, after that little scene, well, let's just say my respect level plummeted a bit.

Also, I don't think Buffy did all she could to include Faith into her life. She was jealous from the beginning, afraid that Faith would take over her family, her friends, her life. I don't think that Faith ever wanted to do that, I think she just wanted to be a part of things. Buffy denied her that, she refused to see how much pain Faith was really in. And then, when the *expletive* finally hit the proverbial fan, all she could do was point at Faith and call her the bad slayer. I give her points for trying to reach out, but really, it was too little too late.

I don't really have much else to say, since it's all been said already, in a much more eloquent way, and mostly by Jill_Valentine, with whom I agree wholeheartedly on nearly every point.

Right then. As an ending note, while it's true that Willow did murder Warren, I do not think that makes her any less of a hero. Warren deserved every bit of what he got, I don't know about anyone else, but I was cheering the first time I saw that.

 

[SlayerThe]

It matters to me whether or not he wanted the soul. And that is why I tend to disregard Angel's "good" deeds as a souled vampire. He never had the ability to feel remorse, while soulless . . . or feel compassion toward another. He never had a desire to seek a soul for whatever reason. Every good deed he had committed, was due to a cursed soul that was forced upon him. It seemed as if his life as a souled vampire was a lie.

And both Faith and Buffy seemed incapable of understanding that. It goes to show that both Slayers still have not fully matured. And incapable of facing what Angel is really like. And to be honest, they are also aware of certain acts he had committed, while as a souled vampire. They seemed more willing to face each other's flaws, than Angel's.

But thats the thing about vampires, there not supposed to good. Haven't you heard the lore? There evil creatures who can do no good. And you can also bring up the point that Spike also had a curse on him, the chip! Ahh ha! Thats his equivalent to the curse Angel has.

Because right before he got that chip, he was killing humans and feeling no remorse. So therefore hes just as bad if not worse! Sure he did good as a vampire, but that was because of his obsession with Buffy.

This is how I think of it : Sure vampires do evil, but their true intentions are to get what they want. Spike wanted Buffy, thus he tried to mold himself into a good character, but this was all because of his "love" for Buffy.

 

[LadyLavinia]

But thats the thing about vampires, there not supposed to good. Haven't you heard the lore? There evil creatures who can do no good. And you can also bring up the point that Spike also had a curse on him, the chip! Ahh ha! Thats his equivalent to the curse Angel has.

Because right before he got that chip, he was killing humans and feeling no remorse. So therefore hes just as bad if not worse! Sure he did good as a vampire, but that was because of his obsession with Buffy.

This is how I think of it : Sure vampires do evil, but their true intentions are to get what they want. Spike wanted Buffy, thus he tried to mold himself into a good character, but this was all because of his "love" for Buffy.

How do you know that vampires aren't supposed to be good? Because they're not human? Because they have a demon within them? How is it that demons like Lorne, Clem, Skip and the demon from the ANGEL Season 2 premiere can either be ambiguous or pretty decent guys, and vampires are all evil?

When you consider humans, they're not at all that different from vampires. And before you state that humans are capable of having a conscience and demons aren't, consider Spike's emotions in episodes like "Bargaining, Part 1", "Entropy" and "Seeing Red". In all three of these episodes, he had shown signs of either guilt and remorse. Having a conscience. And yet, as a soulless vampire at the time, he wasn't supposed to. How do you explain that? Can you see a soulless Angel doing the same? Or harboring so much guilt and remorse for attacking Buffy that he would deliberately go out and get back his soul? Please don't use the chip as an excuse. It won't wash. Spike's chip had not stopped him from betraying the Scoobies to Adam, or making another attempt to get his chip out, so that he can kill Buffy in "Out of My Mind".



Why do humans think they are better than any other beings? Are we that arrogant?



Right then. As an ending note, while it's true that Willow did murder Warren, I do not think that makes her any less of a hero. Warren deserved every bit of what he got, I don't know about anyone else, but I was cheering the first time I saw that.

I found this statement amazing. And typically human. If you were cheering at that disgusting display of violence from Willow . . . I really don't know what to think of you. Willow had disgusted me in that scene. I understood that she was grieving over Tara, but she had went too far. And I find it disturbing that you didn't think so.

Characters like Buffy, Willow and Angel may be heroes, but they are also capable of dark deeds. Which both shows have not failed to show us. But what I find disturbing is that most of the fans are willing to dismiss their darker deeds, because they are "heroes" or the "good guys" and their victims are "evil". Talk about selective morality.

 

[Jacklyn]

I found this statement amazing. And typically human.

Call me crazy, or sarcastic, but that could have alot to do with the fact that the boards members are human...you all are human, aren't you???? : yikes :

 

[SlayerThe]

How do you know that vampires aren't supposed to be good? Because they're not human? Because they have a demon within them? How is it that demons like Lorne, Clem, Skip and the demon from the ANGEL Season 2 premiere can either be ambiguous or pretty decent guys, and vampires are all evil?

When you consider humans, they're not at all that different from vampires. And before you state that humans are capable of having a conscience and demons aren't, consider Spike's emotions in episodes like "Bargaining, Part 1", "Entropy" and "Seeing Red". In all three of these episodes, he had shown signs of either guilt and remorse. Having a conscience. And yet, as a soulless vampire at the time, he wasn't supposed to. How do you explain that? Can you see a soulless Angel doing the same? Or harboring so much guilt and remorse for attacking Buffy that he would deliberately go out and get back his soul? Please don't use the chip as an excuse. It won't wash. Spike's chip had not stopped him from betraying the Scoobies to Adam, or making another attempt to get his chip out, so that he can kill Buffy in "Out of My Mind".



Why do humans think they are better than any other beings? Are we that arrogant?



Right then. As an ending note, while it's true that Willow did murder Warren, I do not think that makes her any less of a hero. Warren deserved every bit of what he got, I don't know about anyone else, but I was cheering the first time I saw that.

I found this statement amazing. And typically human. If you were cheering at that disgusting display of violence from Willow . . . I really don't know what to think of you. Willow had disgusted me in that scene. I understood that she was grieving over Tara, but she had went too far. And I find it disturbing that you didn't think so.

Characters like Buffy, Willow and Angel may be heroes, but they are also capable of dark deeds. Which both shows have not failed to show us. But what I find disturbing is that most of the fans are willing to dismiss their darker deeds, because they are "heroes" or the "good guys" and their victims are "evil". Talk about selective morality.

First off, Skip was evil, didn't you watch Season 3 of Angel? I mean he was an evil pawn of Jasmine's, DUH!

About vampires, no they can't be heroes, with souls, yeah, but not without. They have no conscience. ALL SPIKE CARED ABOUT IN SEASON 4, 5, and 6 was about GETTING BUFFY!

Sure he cares about Buffy, maybe even loves her (though I believe it to be infatuation), but he never regrets anything or has a conscience. Sure he protected Dawn, but only because he did it for Buffy. He tried to kill her and other people while he still had his chip. And he didn't think anything about it. If he would have even had the slightest bit of humanity or goodness, he wouldn't have tried to attack that woman after he found out he could hurt people (actually only Buffy, but he believed he could hurt anyone.

If vampires were the same as humans, then there wouldn't be a discussion here. Your trying to make a huge argument over the simplest thing : Sure there are helpless demons and good demons, but vampires are created with the intention to kill. Thats the primal force that controls their body. Its temptation that takes over their body.

When a vampire takes over someones body, it just has the body. Maybe access to the brain, memories, ect. but it doesn't have a soul or a heart (not physical). Thats it period.

You seem to want to make arguments over the darkness of characters like Buffy and Angel, yet you rave on and on about the goodness of demons. And yes were humans here, so we would have a human response. Sure as humans we could reason that vampires could be good without souls, but there not. Spike wasn't good, he was just a teddy bear with fangs. If you think for a second that he wouldn't have killed any of the Scoobs in a heartbeat in S4, 5 and 6, then you must have not saw Spike intentionally do things to hurt the Scoobs while he still had the chip in his head.

 

[Jenny]

Original Slayer I agree with what you've said in your post completely, but can we please still be nice about it? 🙂 🙂 I think you got the point across perfectly without the need of the last four words (and the giant sized font...ouch my eyes!!) 😀

 

[Willow Rosenberg]

Why do humans think they are better than any other beings? Are we that arrogant?

We're just the most advanced beings whose existence can be proved on the planet...sometimes people confuse that with being better...

How do you know that vampires aren't supposed to be good? Because they're not human? Because they have a demon within them?

I know that vampires aren't good from the killing, blood-sucking and overall lack for the unalienable rights of others they inhabit the planet with. It's shown very clearly on the show vampires are an evil species. Angel & Spike are inherently evil, but have acquired something that normal vamps don't have in order to have a chance to redeem themselves.

I found this statement amazing. And typically human. If you were cheering at that disgusting display of violence from Willow . . . I really don't know what to think of you. Willow had disgusted me in that scene. I understood that she was grieving over Tara, but she had went too far. And I find it disturbing that you didn't think so.

Some people believe in the old eye for an eye...you can easily argue that Warren got what he deserved. He was demeaning and overbearing to women, killed 2 without remorse and almost killed another. He was an evil person. But then again, you can go back and say that murder is wrong no matter what the case, its a debate that dates back centuries... you just have to respect that everyone is entitled to their own point of view.

Characters like Buffy, Willow and Angel may be heroes, but they are also capable of dark deeds. Which both shows have not failed to show us. But what I find disturbing is that most of the fans are willing to dismiss their darker deeds, because they are "heroes" or the "good guys" and their victims are "evil". Talk about selective morality.

Good and Evil are relative terms....Buffy, Willow and Angel are good on the scale of the beings we come across in the Buffyverse. They have saved the world on numerous occassions, and when they do something that is wrong or evil, they attone for their sins and feel remorse. If you were to truly be considered evil, you would feel no remorse for the evil acts you commit, and your evil acts would significantly outweigh your good deeds.

 

[4.O.cious Miss]

Some people believe in the old eye for an eye...you can easily argue that Warren got what he deserved. He was demeaning and overbearing to women, killed 2 without remorse and almost killed another. He was an evil person. But then again, you can go back and say that murder is wrong no matter what the case, its a debate that dates back centuries... you just have to respect that everyone is entitled to their own point of view.

I totally agree here. I always say whatever goes around comes back five times fold. Warren (in my own opinion) got what was eventually coming to him. I think if it hadn't have been Willow it would've eventually been someone else.

 

[Jill_Valentine]

Willow doesn't get to judge any more than Buffy who lives and who dies. No more than Buffy/ Faith her enemies crimes don't invalidate hers. She's not God, or anything approaching it. She's a college student with powers, and she abused them, that's all that's to it. She had absolutely no justification to do what she did. Warren could have, and should have, been charged with murder 2 and attempted murder. Willow, a grieving 20 something, doesn't get to circumvent the entire human justice system because she wants a kodak moment of her own, no matter how badly she wants it. What makes her any different to the crazy cafeteria lady, or Tucker, or James or Marcie or the crazy mob that tried to burn kids alive?

 

[Willow Rosenberg]

The Crazy mob that tried to brun kids alive - I assume you're referring to M.O.O. from Gingerbread...they were different because they were under the thrall of the demon...Marcie, James, Tucker & Crazy Cafeteria lady all acted of their own free will and committed acts of evil. The same applies for Warren, no one forced him to kill those women, he was under no one's spell, influence or magic.

 

[Jill_Valentine]

The Crazy mob that tried to brun kids alive - I assume you're referring to M.O.O. from Gingerbread...they were different because they were under the thrall of the demon...Marcie, James, Tucker & Crazy Cafeteria lady all acted of their own free will and committed acts of evil. The same applies for Warren, no one forced him to kill those women, he was under no one's spell, influence or magic.

But each of them felt justified in their actions because they believed they were avenging some grave wrong, whether it was real or imagined. MOO were "thinking of the children", Marcie wanted revenge for being ignored, James...well... really James was sort of accidental, so pretend I never mentioned him. Tucker had Prom Angst, and Crazy Cafeteria Lady wanted justice after years of watching teenagers eat, a fate truly horrible.

The point is, regardless of scale, two wrongs don't make a right, they just make lots and lots of wrong.

 

[Willow Rosenberg]

But each of them felt justified in their actions because they believed they were avenging some grave wrong, whether it was real or imagined. MOO were "thinking of the children", Marcie wanted revenge for being ignored, James...well... really James was sort of accidental, so pretend I never mentioned him. Tucker had Prom Angst, and Crazy Cafeteria Lady wanted justice after years of watching teenagers eat, a fate truly horrible.

The point is, regardless of scale, two wrongs don't make a right, they just make lots and lots of wrong.

I agree with you in all instances except for MOO because they did not have use of their free will. They were under the influence of the demon causing them to do things they would not otherwise. It is the demon's fault for their actions, not their own.

 

[LadyLavinia]

We're just the most advanced beings whose existence can be proved on the planet...sometimes people confuse that with being better...


In other words, humans do have an arrogant belief that they are superior to other beings.

 

[Willow Rosenberg]

Many do, but your statement is too much of a generalization...there are many exceptions to the rule. And I did state that "sometimes" peole confuse that with being better, not all humans.

 

[SlayerThe]

We're just the most advanced beings whose existence can be proved on the planet...sometimes people confuse that with being better...


In other words, humans do have an arrogant belief that they are superior to other beings.

Whether you believe this to be arrogant or not, the latest scientific data currently proves this theory.

What makes a human different from another animal is his or her ability to reason, to see things Cleary, behave in a way distant from primal nature and to have a conscience.

To animals, your primary goal is to sustain life. Besides from reproducing and finding food or establishing a suitable habitat, your life really doesn't consist of much else.

Humans are quite different. We've pursued other things besides this. We've explored the oceans, dived into science, mathematics and language. Created an amazing world full of possibilities and knowledge. Not to mention that we've advanced so much in so little time since the first civilizations recorded.

So yeah, I guess we are superior.

I know that your going to counter with the belief/saying that other animals have or could do the same thing. Or that there not capable of doing such things. But think about it, we are the species conducting surveys and scientific data about these animals and making it public knowledge. I don't see any squirrels sitting in a lab testing humans (Even though I would believe animal research to be extremely cruel, and I am very serious about environmental protection, really serious.).

We are a nation of people who have explored throughout times by means of history, archeology and science and used our tools to find the building blocks of matter.

We don't know if there's some aliens out in a distant, if not close galaxy. Because we truly do not know.

So I would say that we are superior, but we shouldn't act like it. We easily destroy the habitats of animals that have been here for millions, if not billions of years, without conscience. I think this is actually inferior. But this is really off-topic.

So in terms of brain power, civilization, were superior, but I think other groups of animals could teach us a lot.

 

[LadyLavinia]

Whether you believe this to be arrogant or not, the latest scientific data currently proves this theory.

What makes a human different from another animal is his or her ability to reason, to see things Cleary, behave in a way distant from primal nature and to have a conscience.

To animals, your primary goal is to sustain life. Besides from reproducing and finding food or establishing a suitable habitat, your life really doesn't consist of much else.

Humans are quite different. We've pursued other things besides this. We've explored the oceans, dived into science, mathematics and language. Created an amazing world full of possibilities and knowledge. Not to mention that we've advanced so much in so little time since the first civilizations recorded.

So yeah, I guess we are superior.

I know that your going to counter with the belief/saying that other animals have or could do the same thing. Or that there not capable of doing such things. But think about it, we are the species conducting surveys and scientific data about these animals and making it public knowledge. I don't see any squirrels sitting in a lab testing humans (Even though I would believe animal research to be extremely cruel, and I am very serious about environmental protection, really serious.).

We are a nation of people who have explored throughout times by means of history, archeology and science and used our tools to find the building blocks of matter.

We don't know if there's some aliens out in a distant, if not close galaxy. Because we truly do not know.

So I would say that we are superior, but we shouldn't act like it. We easily destroy the habitats of animals that have been here for millions, if not billions of years, without conscience. I think this is actually inferior. But this is really off-topic.

So in terms of brain power, civilization, were superior, but I think other groups of animals could teach us a lot.

I could somewhat go with that. Although, I still believe that humans have a tendency to be arrogant about themselves. If you'll notice in a lot of sci-fi/fantasy stories (but not in all of them), humanity is presented as something to achieve . . . something superior to other species. I call it the "humanity patting itself on the back" theory. Of all the sci-fi and fantasy sagas, guilty of this are the STAR TREK and LORD OF THE RINGS sagas.

 

[Willow Rosenberg]

I could somewhat go with that. Although, I still believe that humans have a tendency to be arrogant about themselves. If you'll notice in a lot of sci-fi/fantasy stories (but not in all of them), humanity is presented as something to achieve . . . something superior to other species. I call it the "humanity patting itself on the back" theory. Of all the sci-fi and fantasy sagas, guilty of this are the STAR TREK and LORD OF THE RINGS sagas.

You are talking about a concept that is presenting itself in Science FICTION and Fantasy stories...it's not as valid an argument as if you were arguing actual human tendencies to think ourselves superior. Those stories are made to explore places that we as humans do not have access to because they present themselves in impossible situations.

 

[Jill_Valentine]

But she's saying that they reflect our social attitude - That we will always consider ourselves unquestionably superior.

 

[Willow Rosenberg]

They're reflecting the social attitudes of the few (relatively speaking) people who are responsible for their production.