These are different circumstances to those they now live under, therefore they are more trustworthy that a man who literally cannot control himself. or his actions.
And if the circumstances were to return? If someone else Willow loves is murdered, how do we know she won't try to end the world again? If Anya is jilted again, how do we know she won't ask to be turned into a vengeance demon again? In Anya's case, she's actually spent by far the majority of her 1000 years of life as a killer--it is not unreasonable to assume that one day she may choose to become that person again.
Unless your saying, deep down, that Spike can resist the trigger (like he did with Buffy) but that would mean that Spike, on some level, is responsible for all those deaths and sirings on behalf of the First.
I mean, I don't believe that because it clearly looked like he couldn't control himself, but maybe you think differently, so which is it?
Obviously I completely agree that Spike couldn't control himself. I am simply making the argument that one who cannot control himself but can be restrained with chains until the element that is controlling him is removed, (and remember we have no reason to believe it can't be,) is less dangerous--certainly more predictable--than a bunch of former killers who began killing suddenly and reformed almost as quickly, and very recently to boot.
So hey, if Giles wants to take ALL of them out, for the safety of the world or whatever, then fine. That would be solid logic. If could have said, "You know what, we've got an entire house here of former killers and I just don't know when any of them are going to snap again. One is so dangerous that she almost created an apocalypse, one was a demon for 1000 years, one killed his best friend, and one is a newly souled vampire who is temporarily being controlled by another source. Let's just get rid of the lot of them and we'll be safe." While I would have
heartily disagreed with his position, at least where logic and consistency are concerned, I couldn't fault his reasoning.
The thing about the coat being a tribute or some nonsense- I might've believed that if Spike made any mention of thinking that, or indeed if for one moment he showed any remorse for killing either of the slayers, but he doesn't- because apparently; 'that's the way the game is played'.
Well here you're combining two separate trains of thought. One is his reasoning for wearing the coat, or lack thereof, and the other is what he said to Wood. The former is unknown to us, and that is my point. I say it's symbolic and doesn't show a lack of remorse, you say it's disgusting. But he DOESN'T tell us which it is so as I said in my previous thread, all we can do is speculate.
The matter of what he said to Wood is indeed separate. The fact that he believes that "that's the way the game is played" in the first place doesn't address the coat. But to the next point:
He said those words, he meant them, I wish people would stop trying to make excuses for his actions in this episode- just call him a heartless jerk, or maybe say that he was taunting Wood and didn't actually believe what he was saying. (I believe he was entirely sincere.) Maybe he was just being a shit to the guy who'd just tried to kill him.
Honestly, it's a bit of both, the way I see it. Yeah I think it's horrible that he said it. It WAS heartless of him to say it, and I"ll be the first to admit that obviously there are many things that my favorite characters do that I flat out despise. But as you pointed out, he there is an element there of being "a shit to the guy who'd just tried to kill him." Because remember, it's not just that Wood attacked him that was unacceptable to Spike. It's the fact that first he wanted to turn him back into the very think he'd worked so hard to no longer be. That, in fact, was like trying to kill him TWICE.
Again, while I despise the way this scene played out and the way in which Spike acted, I certainly understand why his words contained extra venom at the time, given the above. And while I think it's heartless to defend oneself to the person who's lost his mother, Spike was making the point that he killed the person who would have killed him, and his kind. You know,"Tybalt would kill thee but thou slewest Tybalt, there art thou happy." It's all a miserable mess and of course Spike isn't content or proud about what he did, now that he's ensouled. But in this case, he was defending himself.
For the record, in case anyone thinks I don't mind any of this--I can't watch the scene between Spike and Wood, at all. I find Spike to be despicable in it, though I do understand where the venom comes from, as I mentioned above.
But no, its all, 'He's honouring her.' 🙄
Wait what? Did you think I meant that he was honoring Nikki Wood by wearing the coat? Just checking, cause that's not the case. He isn't honoring anyone, he is--again, just my take-- symbolically indicating that he is ready to fight with Buffy, the new slayer.
It wasn't remorse, not remotely, vampires don't feel remorse, even for loved ones they've brutally murdered, because they're soulless and evil and by definition have no conscience, they're not capable.
Er I think we may have our wires crossed here but I'm referring to the Spike of season 7 feeling remorse--you know, the one with a soul? Yes he absolutely can, and yes there is quite a lot of precedence for that (Angel, remember?) And as I said, that is in fact how the trigger works. The trigger is soul-having Spike's guilt and remorse, in song form.
