Villain or Victim?

[Mini Mia]

Anne Boleyn

Was she really a villain? Or was she a victim made out to look like a villain?

I don't know much about her history. I've only seen the movie: 'The Other Boleyn Girl' ... and I wonder how much of it is true, and how much of it is falsehoods told down through history. Did King Henry VIII have lies spread about her so he could have her killed to marry another? Or was she really that manipulative?

[katina2nd]

Certainly a fair bit of intrigue in royal circles back in those days, think this gives as good an insight into Anne as you'll find ......

englishhistory.net/tudor/monarchs/boleyn.html

[Mini Mia]

The movie I watched portrayed her as an instigator, but I think this page may have it right ... she didn't think Henry would, or even could, end his marriage to marry her, and was hoping this would end the matter of him pursuing her. But who knows. She really couldn't deny the King, now could she? So she had to give in, and why not make the best of it? After all, if a King won't take no for an answer, why not jump in whole hog and take advantage of the situation?

Why the victim is always the one blamed in a lot of cases is a mystery to me ... but it seems like some of the most vilest people can get away with anything and come out of it as such sweet human beings.

Next Up:

[Phalon]

Interesting topic, Joxie. I've seen the movie "The Other Boleyn Girl"; though I enjoyed it, I like it's like many other movies depicting the lives of historical figures - largely inaccurate. In fact, the book the movie was based on is labeled as "historical fiction" only loosely based on the lives of the Boleyn sisters.

It seems like the Anne portrayed on the site Katina posted is probably more like how she really was....although it also seems like the information there is "pro-Anne"; little of the information there portrays her in a negative light. Maybe the truth is somewhere in-between? Who can really say? Still, I think both the movie and Katina's site make for some interesting viewing and reading.

Next up? I did a quick drill on Villains or Victims and came up with Mary Mallon, better known by the name the media of the time gave her, "Typhoid Mary".

In 1906, six out of 11 family members and servants in a wealthy household on Long Island came down with typhoid fever. The spread of the disease was eventually traced to the cook, Mary Mallon.

Mallon refused to believe she could be responsible; she never had typhoid fever, didn't feel sick, and seemed healthy in every way. Samples taken though, of her stool showed that she carried the typhoid bacteria, and health officials basically imprisoned her on an island cottage, which was part of a hospital for infectious diseases, and kept her in isolation for two years.

During her isolation, stool samples were taken once a week, and the results continued to come back mostly positive, (120 out of 163). Mary though, still believing she could not be responsible, also sent samples to a private lab - all of which came back negative. Feeling she was wrongfully accused and being treated like a criminal, she sued the health department....and lost.

Then in 1910, a new health commissioner released Mary on terms she never again work as a cook. For many this were the blame shifts from Mary being a victim to her being a villain. Five years after her release, an outbreak of typhoid fever occurred at a hospital, and was again traced back to the cook - a Mrs. Brown. Mary, unable to find other employment, still absolutely believing she wasn't a carrier, had returned, using an alias, to the only job she knew - cooking.

She was returned to the island, and for the next 23 years, lived out the rest of her life in the isolated cottage. She was not the only healthy carrier in New York at the time, nor was she the deadliest, or the only one that ignored officials' rules that they discontinue work in food service. But she was the only one isolated for life. Some believe it was because she was a woman, an Irish immigrant, and a servant.

Here's an interesting perspective on why 'Typhoid Mary' is more a victim than a villain.

www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/typhoid-mary-villain-or-victim.html

[Mini Mia]

Very interesting, I actually thought of her as I typed out this thread. If cooking is all she knew, then the government should have trained her in something else where she could earn a living. I can see how she'd refuse to believe she was responsible, considering she'd never had typhoid. (Or never became ill from it.) I don't necessarily condemn the government's actions, but locking her up for life seemed overkill to me.

I wonder why some were carriers, and some were not? I guess medicine prevents there from being present day carriers. I wonder if using gloves while cooking would have kept her from spreading the disease?

[stepper]

locking her up for life seemed overkill to me

Never under estimate the uneducated and suspicious. Not meaning her or the people who did this to her. I mean the general public. It's entirely possible she was treated so severely to appease the masses. But, if it was my sister who got sick and died because Mary didn't believe what she was told about the disease, if my sister died because Mary was freed on the condition that she not cook again - a condition she intentionally ignored - how would I feel? Even in today’s litigious society I would want more than monetary compensation.

[Mini Mia]

True. I was seeing it from only one perspective. If she fed my family, after the fact, I'm sure I'd want her on death row.

[Phalon]

I can see how she'd refuse to believe she was responsible, considering she'd never had typhoid. (Or never became ill from it.)

Mary probably had to have typhoid at some point, otherwise she would not be a carrier. The disease in some people though, never progresses past mild flu-like symptoms so it's not diagnosed as typhoid. Another theory is that she was born with it; her mother supposedly had typhoid at one time, though it's not a documented case.

I wonder why some were carriers, and some were not? I guess medicine prevents there from being present day carriers. I wonder if using gloves while cooking would have kept her from spreading the disease?

Gloves would have definitely prevented her from spreading the disease. So would frequent hand-washing. Typhoid was typically spread by food handlers due to poor hygiene - using the restroom, and not washing hands afterward.

There are still present day carriers; the CDC estimates five percent of people who contract typhoid become carriers. A couple things prevents there from being an epidemic in this country, (typhoid still occurs in epidemic proportions in some areas of the world). One is knowledge about the importance of hygiene, and the other is the chlorination of drinking water, which kills most of the bacteria.

In today's world, Mallon would definitely be a villain. We know so much more about the spread of disease now, it'd be impossible for her not to believe she was a carrier. Back then though, I'm not so sure... I'm unclear how much was known about the spread of typhoid, and since she was the first person who was diagnosed as an asymptomatic carrier, I think it's entirely possible she truly believed she was not responsible for spreading the disease.

Ok, so who's our next victim....or villain?

[Phalon]

Kind of veering away from the female victim or villain we've discussed so far. Considered by many to be a villain, and others definitely view them as victims: pit bulls.

LX's Might As Well Be the Boyfriend, and in fact, Pretty Much is the Boyfriend got a pit bull a few months ago. I should say, he, his brother, and two sisters got a pit bull - the dog was to be a family pet. They picked her out from the Humane Society; she was a beautiful 6 to 8 month old puppy with a sweet disposition. They did everything they were supposed to - informed their landlord they were getting a dog, paid the security deposit in case the dog destroyed the townhouse, got its shots, and had her spayed. The kids fell in love with her....

....until two months later, a neighbor reported the dog to the landlord. It's not that the dog acted ill-behaved in anyway, or barked at odd hours of the night. It was that it is a pit bull. It seems there is a clause within the townhouse community that pets are allowed...unless they are pit bulls. When the mother informed the landlord that they were getting a dog and paid the security deposit, he never mentioned that "pets allowed" excludes pit bulls. Facing eviction if they didn't get rid of the dog, she had to go back to the Humane Society, where luckily, another adoptive family was already interested in her, (they asked to be informed if for some reason the first adoption to boyfriend's family didn't go through).

The kids, of course, are heartbroken. Is it fair that because some owners mistreat and breed a dog for fighting that the entire breed be vilified? Or do you think the breed should be singled out has being dangerous, regardless of proper training and a good home?

[stepper]

I'm on the side where it's not the breed, it's the breeders. Based on what you say boyfriend's family didn't have a problem with aggression which is what people are afraid of when faced with a dog. So here, everyone is a victim. The dog gets attached but ends up getting passed around for no reason, the kids are going to be angry with everyone because it's hard to focus on a single thing when it's "policy" that you can't have your dog. It causes a divisive environment for them and the neighbors who out of fear, become overly protective of themselves and their children. It may well be fair to ask who isn't a victim here? You said they don't band German Shepherds but they were bred for their aggression and guard dog qualities.
I did a 10 second drill and here is a list of the 10 'most dangerous' dogs. Guess which is at the top of the list..

"After in depth research and analyzing the studies performed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the CDC, and the Humane Society of the United States, we have compiled the top ten most dangerous dog breeds."

1. Pit Bulls (They will lock their jaws onto the prey until it's dead. Pit bulls have a reputation of mauling people to death.)
2. Rottweilers ( Rottweilers are known to be very aggressive dogs because of their keen territorial instincts.)
3. German Shepherds (They are highly used by local authorities such as the police K-9 unit. German shepherds are known to be fearless and confident dogs.)
4. Huskies (Very energetic and intelligent dogs. Not considered a good guard dog because of its personality characteristics and gentle temperament. A 2000 study of dog bites resulting in human fatalities in the U.S. found fifteen such fatalities (6% of the total) were caused by "husky-type" dogs between 1979 and 1997.) {Why is the number 4 dog on the list known for its "gentle temperament?}
5. Alaskan Malamutes (If they are bored, they can become destructive. That's why this dog needs lots of exercise to be happy.)
6. Doberman Pinschers (Dobermans are great guard dogs for their alertness, intelligence and loyalty. They can be agressive dogs when provoked. The typical pet Doberman attacks only if it believes that it, its property, or its family are in danger.)
7. Chow Chow (These dogs can be aggressive if poorly bred. The Chow Chow may appear to be independent and aloof for much of the day but needs constant reinforcement.)
8. Presa Canario (Originally bred to guard and fight with cattle, an attack by this dog has been described as hopeless for the victim. They are a guardian breed with man-stopping ability, incredible power and a complete lack of fear.) {I've never heard of this one but based on the comments, it seems it should be closer to the top of the list.}
9. Boxers (Unlike their name suggest, these dogs are not typically aggressive by nature. They are bright, energetic and playful breed.)
10 Dalmatians (Dalmatians are very protective dogs and can be aggressive towards humans. They are very active and need lots of exercise.)

[Scrappy Amazon]

Pit bulls, Chihuahuas and Presa Canarios…..oh my!

Wow. A subject right up my alley. I have been in the animal welfare industry (if you can call it an industry) in one way or another for about 8 years now and the subject of breed restrictions or banning has always been a major concern and topic for discussion.

I am totally against breed restrictions. What I am for is owner restrictions. There are just some people out there who should not have animals of any kind and should be restricted in doing so. Just like we all know there are some people out there who should not have children. If you have to get a license to drive a car you should have to get a license to have kids or animals. But that’s jut my totally unrealistic opinion born of seeing the worst of the worst when it comes to the results of bad owners.

But I digress, we were talking about pit bulls as victims or villains. Definitely victim. It’s been my experience that you can take any breed of dog and make it a killer. You are ten times more likely to get bit by a dog under 10 pounds than you are any of the top ten breeds listed by Step. The difference? When the little dogs bite they don’t and aren’t capable of doing the kind of damage that a large dog does when it bites. To put it simply it’s the size that matters. I have personally witnessed a large pit bull cowering in the corner of a kennel while a Chihuahua menaced it into submission.

All dogs were bred and domesticated from wolves eons ago. But domestic dogs have taken the basic body language, designed to talk to each other, from their ancestors and adapted it to life with humans. Or maybe I should say we bred them to be easier to read. Why not? It’s a beneficial relationship. They get free food and we get companions and guard dogs and hunting partners. The thing about pit bulls is they were bread to fight large and dangerous animals like other dogs, bears, bulls and sometimes other more exotic fare shipped in like lions. As a result they have developed a completely different language all together. Unlike your average lab or Shepherd who is going to growl or bark or straighten its tail to warn you, a pit bull won’t. It’s designed to be non reactive. They can go from zero to I’m going to kill you in a heart beat and you’ll never have seen any sign. It’s not a bad thing it’s just how they’ve been bred to be.

But they are just like any other kind of pet. They take a specific knowledgeable person to understand and make them a great pet. You wouldn’t expect someone who has never had a snake before as a pet to automatically know how to take care of them. They need a bit of training and education first. Pit bulls are loyal and make great family dogs. You just need to know how they are.

Personally, I wouldn’t have one. They require more attention than I can possibly give them. I wouldn’t have heeler or a pointer or a boxer either for the same reasons. Too much dog for me. I like my couch potatoes that are happy to sleep all day until I get home and can throw a few balls for them.

Prime example of what I’m talking about. We recently had an incident here that’s got everyone in an uproar and brought up the whole anti pit bull rhetoric again. A man here was bitten so bad by his own pit bull that he had to have both his arms amputated before he died from complications.

Now if you saw that headline on your local newspaper or saw that story on your local news wouldn’t you freak out a little bit too? The problem here is how the story is told. I wasn’t home when the incident first occurred, so I only have second hand information. However, because the shelter I work for ended up impounding the dog in question I did get a pretty good idea of what actually happened.

Basic retelling of the story that you hear on the news: The owner was breaking up a fight between the dog in question and another dog, the dog in question redirected and attacked the owner. The owner went to the hospital, had one of his arms amputated. A few days later they amputated the other arm. A few days after that he died.

Here’s the rest of the story: The dog in question had recently been neutered and was still slightly ill or not feeling well from the surgery and possibly still under some effect from the anesthesia. It got into a fight with the other dog, the owner tried to break it up and due to possible hallucinations or effects from the surgery the dog redirected and attacked the nearest threat to it, the owner. The owner already had severe health issues that caused him to have to take many medications and sleep in a hospital bed in his living room.

1. The dog was ill.
2. The owner was ill.
3. The owner should not have gotten in the middle of a dog fight.
4. The dog should have had more time and a quiet place to recuperate from surgery.
5. The second dog should have been kept separate.
6. etc…. etc….etc….

Needless to say we euthanized the dog after the owner died because the man’s daughter didn’t want the dog back.

In all the years I have been doing this I have NEVER come across any animal that bit for no reason. There have always been some mitigating circumstances involved. And I have never met a pit bull that was vicious without there being a reason why.

Bottom line….people make the dogs the way they are. Either through neglect or direct intervention.

By the way Step. A bit of information on the Presa. They are a Mossler breed. Basically a spanish version of a mastiff. They kinda look like a giant pitbull crossed with an english mastiff. They can get up to 150 - 180 pounds. They are pretty rare which is probably why they haven't made it higher up the list. All the years I've been doing this I've maybe only ever seen one. And I believe that one was a mix.

“Punish the deed not the breed.”

[Phalon]

10 Dalmatians (Dalmatians are very protective dogs and can be aggressive towards humans. They are very active and need lots of exercise.)

Hubs was bit by a co-worker's very protective dalmatian once a long time ago....and still has the scar on his butt to prove it.

I am totally against breed restrictions. What I am for is owner restrictions.

Have you ever watched that Animal Planet television show "Pit Bulls and Parolees", Scrappy? It was one of BP's favorites, and every Saturday night during the prime viewing hour of 10pm, we had to sit through the show....and actually, I got hooked. Anyway, it was about a pit bull rescue facility, and prospective adopters had to go through an interview, as well as a home inspection to make sure the people and home were a good fit for the dog. I know it's cost prohibitive to implement such a process nationwide, but I think it'd eliminate some of those people who shouldn't have pets from getting a pet.

Bottom line….people make the dogs the way they are. Either through neglect or direct intervention.

Perfectly said. I did a two-minute drill too, and found an interesting article about this exact thing titled ironically "Villain or Victim?"

Here's the link: www.urbanitebaltimore.com/baltimore/villain-or-victim/Content?oid=1296788

Kind of an interesting thing...in Stepper's article, the reason listed for pit bulls being dangerous is called a myth in this article...

"Both nature and nurture changed for pit bulls in the 1980s, when a surge of interest in street dogfighting led to indiscriminate backyard breeding and a population of new—and inexperienced—dogfighters. This was when highly publicized stories of pit bulls biting humans started appearing in the media. Myths developed about pit bulls, including the rumor that when they bite, their jaws lock."

I wonder which is correct?

[Scrappy Amazon]

Sept 5, 2011 6:17:12 GMT -6 Phalon said:

I wonder which is correct?

Having seen them fight (not on purpose), and had to break up a fight or two between two pits, it's not that they lock it more about that they are tenacious and have a jaw strength that is nearly impossible to break.

To put it simply. When they latch on they don't let go. Why would they? If you got into a fight and had the upper hand would you quit?

[Phalon]

If you got into a fight and had the upper hand would you quit?

Hmmm...a hard question to answer. Am I a dog, or a person. Pfft! You know what I mean. As a dog, probably not...I say "probably" because I'm not quite sure what goes through a dog's mind in a fight. Do they normally fight until the end? Or will the one that has the upper hand, having established its dominance, allow the other to walk away. If so, if I was a dog that had established dominance, then yes, I'd quit.

As a person, yes, I'd quit also....

...unless I was in a horror movie. Because everyone knows if you're in a horror movie, and you turn your back and quit, it will come back to haunt you. And usually it's after you've tossed aside your ice pick, ax, gun, or Swiss Army knife with the corkscrew attachment. You think you're finally safe because you've picked, hacked, shot, or corkscrewed them to death, but once you turn your back.....

As a horror movie participant, no, I'd wouldn't quit.

Did you really think you were going to get a simple "yes" or "no" answer, Scrappy? HA! You probably didn't expect an answer at all.

[katina2nd]

At the risk of getting mauled *groan* I come down on the other side of the argument here.

They may indeed be more victim then villain, but I'd ban them in a heartbeat if given the chance.

As Scrappy pointed out, it's in their genetic nature to be aggressive .........

www.pitbull411.com/history.html

In an ideal world all owners would be responsible, caring people, but we all know we don't live in an ideal world, and as we can't legislate for stupidity the only thing to do is legislate against the breed as I see it.

Not pleasent reading in the following link, and we may well ask who was more at fault, the dog or the owner, but whatever the answer it doesn't alter the end result, and if we can avoid a repeat of incidents like this then a ban is a small price to pay ..................

www.news.com.au/national/child-killed-in-dog-attack-at-st-albans/story-e6frfkvr-1226117002241

[Scrappy Amazon]

Did you really think you were going to get a simple "yes" or "no" answer, Scrappy? HA! You probably didn't expect an answer at all.

Um.....no?

I'm so confused.

Sept 8, 2011 19:30:13 GMT -6 katina2nd said:

At the risk of getting mauled *groan* I come down on the other side of the argument here.

They may indeed be more victim then villain, but I'd ban them in a heartbeat if given the chance.

As Scrappy pointed out, it's in their genetic nature to be aggressive .........

Hold the phone there Bud......or back the truck up or whatever your favorite is....

I never said they were predispositioned genetically for agression. What I said was....

It’s designed to be non reactive.

Meaning they have been bred so that you can't tell IF they are going to become agressive. Not that they are genetically meant to be aggressive. In other words.....they have a constant poker face.

And banning them isn't going to solve the problem. It'll just send everyone farther underground. Or cause issues with labeling. For instance...."My dog isn't a pit bull! It's a lab mix!" And how do you prove it except by requiring genetic testing.

[katina2nd]

Sept 10, 2011 15:42:54 GMT -6 Scrappy Amazon said:

Hold the phone there Bud......or back the truck up or whatever your favorite is....

Hold your horses always works for me.

Sept 10, 2011 15:42:54 GMT -6 Scrappy Amazon said:

I never said they were predispositioned genetically for agression. What I said was....

It’s designed to be non reactive.

Meaning they have been bred so that you can't tell IF they are going to become agressive. Not that they are genetically meant to be aggressive. In other words.....they have a constant poker face.

Ah'ha yes, but you also said ......

Sept 4, 2011 11:40:08 GMT -6 Scrappy Amazon said:

[The thing about pit bulls is they were bread to fight large and dangerous animals like other dogs, bears, bulls and sometimes other more exotic fare shipped in like lions.

Centuries of breeding, as the first link I posted points out, to be an agressive fighting dog.

Sept 10, 2011 15:42:54 GMT -6 Scrappy Amazon said:

And banning them isn't going to solve the problem. It'll just send everyone farther underground. Or cause issues with labeling. For instance...."My dog isn't a pit bull! It's a lab mix!" And how do you prove it except by requiring genetic testing.

Yep, but isn't that the same type of argument the gun lobby always puts forward each time there's a shooting, banning guns will mean only the bad guys will be armed, so let's just put the problem in the to hard basket and leave the place awash with weapons, many of which have no place other then in a military application.

Banning might not be the complete answer, and it may be unfair on the breed and people who want to own one, but the same with guns, you have to take the step and hope you get it right eventually, because surely the ultimate goal in both cases is peoples safety.

Hey I know how you feel about your animals Scrapp' so hope I'm not upsetting/offending you here, after all it's just my opinion and as we know that's worth diddly squat in the great tapestry of life..

[Scrappy Amazon]

I think the bottom line is that we have had different experiences with this. I've had years of working with pit bulls directly. I don't find them any more or less specifically aggressive than any other breed of dog.

And Bud.....I think we can disagree about some things and still be friends.

[katina2nd]

First off, apologies for the delay in replying.
Sheesh I seem to be doing a lot of that lately, so apologies for always apologising ................. or whatever.

Sept 16, 2011 8:43:40 GMT -6 Scrappy Amazon said:

And Bud.....I think we can disagree about some things and still be friends.

Not so sure about that, I get my back up pretty easily.












;D

[Scrappy Amazon]

pfft

I'm offended now. I'm not talking to you.

[katina2nd]

Whywhatdidido? .................... this time.

Come on Scrapp, speak to me ..... purrrrlease.

[Phalon]

Aw, Scrappy, how can you resist that request? He's purring.

With the season approaching, and my favorite holiday right around the corner, how 'bout next up we go with something with a Halloweeny theme?

Carrie White - victim or villainness?

Stephen King's creation, "Carrie", was most surely a victim; she suffered mental abuse from her religious fanatic mother and was shunned and ridiculed by nearly everyone. A person reading the book, or watching Brian De Palma's movie adaptation feels sorry for her; it seems the poor thing just can't catch a break. But there's a point where she becomes less a victim and more a villain - she seeks revenge.

Can revenge ever be justified? In the movie, using her telekinetic power, she causes the death of entire student body at the prom. In the book, she doesn't stop there, and leaves the school to destroy the town, leaving lots of innocent people dead in her wake.

A bit of overkill on her part, don't ya think?

A two-minute drill reveals a lot has been written about the role of Carrie as either a victim or villain. It's often been said that she is one of the best, and possibly the first, strong female horror characters in film - either victim or villain. She was one of the first females in a horror movie to actually fight back. Neither the hapless sexy victim that gets slashed or somehow makes it out alive, nor the purely evil demonic type character, Carrie was a character that broke free from the stereotypical female horror role. Audiences - especially women - cheered her on as someone who eventually refused to be a victim any longer.

This just came to mind because there's a "Carrie" remake in the works (of course there is; they're remaking everything these days). This latest one is supposed to follow the book more than the original did.

A bit of trivia about the 1976 movie: At the end, when Carrie's hand reaches from the grave to pull Sue Snell down to hell with her, it's Sissy Spacek's own hand - she insisted on it, instead of using a stunt double. De Palma refused to bury her - even if it was in a box - so her husband did it. While setting up the scene, which took awhile, every so often De Palma would hear Sissy ask from underground, "Are we ready yet?"

"Carrie" was one of the only horror films to be nominated for Academy Awards; Spacek received the nomination for Best Actress, and Piper Laurie, who played Carrie's mother, was nominated for Best Supporting Actress.

[Scrappy Amazon]

Ok ok.....but only cause you brought me a flower. You didnt steal it from the neighbors yard did you?

[Mini Mia]

Phalon: You and I are on the same wavelength. I had been planning of doing one about Cutler Beckett from the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' II & III movies. He no doubt is following in the footsteps of his father, his father before him, his father before him, etc. and so he was raised to be, and is expected to be, number one at all costs. My heart always goes out to him at the end when he loses and he's stunned by how, after doing all he was raised and taught to do, the world has turned against him. Is he a villain or victim? At what point does he and Carrie become the villains and not the victims? If they aren't ever shown a better way to live, then how is what they do considered villainy? Why should they be punished for how they were raised, and those who raised them don't. Well maybe not in Carrie's case. I think her mom does reap what she sowed. But what of Cutler Beckett's family? What if none of them reaped what they sowed? Is it fair that Cutler Beckett is the only one to get his comeuppance? And not just his, but that of his family as well?

If someone only knows the ways in which they are raised, is it fair to punish them for not knowing another, better way? If those ways were beaten into them until there is no longer a choice but to take the one pathway they are forced to travel down, should they be held accountable? Are they accountable?

When Cutler Beckett's face drains of any emotion, I see the child that no one protected from the wills of his family, and I cry for that child. Should I cry for the child? Or should I see the adult that took the road opened to him without rebelling against it? Who must/might have at some point in his adult life refused to take the better road that as a child was closed off from him?

Cutler Beckett and Carrie had different circumstances, but I think in some sense, they are the same.

[Phalon]

Joxie, I've been meaning to get back to this, but haven't had a chance yet, and still have some mulling over to do on the topic. I don't see Beckett as a victim at all....although, I honestly don't remember too much about him, and had to drill the name (too much other scenery in the films to distract me, you know).

Still, it does bring up an interesting possibility about what actually constitutes a person being seen as a victim or a villain. A "product of an environment" or a "product of yourself"? Each case is individual, of course, with it's own set of circumstances, but I believe that for the most part, a person makes his own choices and should be held accountable for them.

[Mini Mia]

True. It's just that when Cutler Beckett's face falls I see the child who was forced by his family to win at all costs and I feel bad for him when he goes into shock that he has lost. And I wonder what kind of person would he have been if he'd been given the chance to be a better person. Weird, I know. Perhaps it's just great acting that causes me to feel sorry for him. Not that I'm not glad that he has lost, because I am. I'm just sad that he maybe never had a chance to be better. (And most likely he probably wouldn't have taken it in the first place. In which case I would say, "Good riddance!" I just get hung up on 'what if' he would have been a better person if given the chance? If he would have taken that road, then I cry for the life he could have had as a better person. Again, maybe it's just the way the actor plays him in that moment that breaks my heart. If so, great acting! I rarely cry for a bad guy. )

[katina2nd]

Sept 25, 2011 14:42:33 GMT -6 Scrappy Amazon said:

Ok ok.....but only cause you brought me a flower. You didnt steal it from the neighbors yard did you?

Heck, now I'm offended.
I'll have you know I grew that from a tiny seedling, cultivated it, lavished it with TLC so it would be the perfect speciman.

[stepper]

I'm curious about the general opinion of non military people here. Do you think Anwar al-Awlaki is a villain or a victim? Personally, be he US citizen or renounced US citizen, I don't care. He was simply another terrorist repeatedly plotting and planning on killing as many US citizens as possible. (He was the admitted planner of the Christmas Day underwear bomber and recruiter of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who tried to detonate the explosives over the Detroit runway.) I could go on and on, but as far as I'm concerned, you don't let people continue to plot the death of your citizens while they hide in a foreign country hoping the distance and sovereignty of that country will protect them. I count him as a villain.

[Mini Mia]

I think someone can be both a victim and a villain, and I guess at some point the victim is no longer a victim, but an out and out villain. And even if a victim was brainwashed or not, and was never given the opportunity to be a better person at some point doesn't necessarily mean that that person shouldn't be punished.

I don't watch the news, so I've no idea about how Anwar al-Awlaki was raised ... if the choices were made for him from birth, or if he made them for himself as an adult. Whatever made him the way he is, outside forces or inside forces, he still should be stopped. There comes a point when someone is no longer saveable. When lines are crossed and lives are at stake, there has to be a consequence. And the child that could have been saved ... that could have been a better person ... that could have had a better life ... that child's loss should always be felt and cried for.

When I cry for Cutler Beckett, I don't cry for the man ... I cry for the child inside who was most likely beaten into being the man he grew into ... and for the man he might have been if he had had the opportunity, and would have taken that path to a better life, if offered.

I remember when, after 9/11, the news showed people in the streets in other countries cheering and celebrating the deaths of people they didn't know. I remember hoping that when those behind the attacks were found and punished that there wouldn't be cheering and celebrating in the streets on the news. I hoped that we were better than that. Is it ever okay to celebrate a death? Even when the ones who die are vile human beings who deserve the most horrible deaths imaginable? I honestly don't know.

[Scrappy Amazon]

Sept 29, 2011 19:13:18 GMT -6 katina2nd said:

Heck, now I'm offended.
I'll have you know I grew that from a tiny seedling, cultivated it, lavished it with TLC so it would be the perfect speciman.

Just like you?

Let's talk about Little Red Riding Hood.....

Temptress, Ax Murderer, or Innocent little girl?