Was the chip wrong?

[vampmogs]

Hey :wave:

Over on IDW forums there's been a debate about wether or not the chip placed in Spike's head was wrong. It was quite funny that even Brian Lynch jumped into the debate but basically there's two opposing sides to this. Those who believe the chip was good, the rest believing it was bad (just for the record Lynch went with good.) Areas such as free will, torture and all that fun stuff was brought up throughout the conversation.

So I'm basically bringing the question over to these forums to try and generate some discussion. Was the chip good or bad? Now please make note here that I'm *not* asking you wether or not you believe the Initinative as an organisation was good or bad, but wether or not *the chip* was good or bad. Obviously the organisation is going to be brought up here as they created the chip but please differentiate between the two because I do believe they are two different things entirely.

Personally I think the chip was a definite positive. It prevented Spike and any other vampire from killing innocent people and I can’t see any argument as to why that’s a bad thing. It saved Willow’s life in ‘The Initinative,’ it saved Xander and Anya’s life in ‘The Yoko Factor’ and Buffy’s life in ‘Out of My Mind.’ It also saved the girl whom Spike tries to kill in ‘Smashed’ as well as countless other victims who would have died if the chip hadn’t been working.

Now I don’t believe free will matters whatsoever here. Why would it be considered a bad thing that we eliminated Spike or any other vampires free will to… kill a bunch of innocent people? The chip is no different than locking up a killer in prison, even Buffy makes the connection telling Spike he’s like “a serial killer in prison.” If it’s not bad to lock up human prisoners against their will to protect the public, then it’s certainly not a bad thing to put chips into *soulless vampires* heads to stop them from slaughtering innocent people. That’s not even taking into account that soulless vampires aren’t given the same rights as humans in the show, the show it titled ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ for a reason, it shouldn’t in my opinion, be regarded as a bad thing to eliminate evil demons and their ability to choose to kill people.

There's also a distinction in how the show presented the chip in comparison to the Initinative. A few people over on IDW were claiming the show presented the Initinative as a bad organisation and thus, we're meant to view it in such a matter. That may be true, but the show never presented *the chip* in a negative light, quite the opposite in fact. In the episode 'Out of My Mind' the chance Spike could have the chip *removed* is presented negatively and in a sinister manner, certainly not in a positive manner. So if anything I'd say the show did a good job at presenting *the chip* in a positive light, not a negative.

To be clear, I don't believe the chip should be placed into any creature *with a soul* against their consent, but that's not whom we are talking about here.

So fire away, the chip a good or a bad?

Vamps :)

[Nina]

Well, it's more good than bad. So I went with 'good'.

I never got what was wrong with the good old staking of an evil vampire (although ... maybe they tried it, with Riley fake stake and it didn't work.), but okay, they chipped an evil vampire. I don't see why it's bad, vampires are pure evil, it's how they work. The first thing they do when they rise is looking for blood and kill an innocent. That's why they get killed in both shows without a chance to defend themselves. I agree with Mogs that they should stay away from demons/humans with a soul (or something like a soul.).

It stopped Spike from killing humans, and it even made him do some good things. If he doesn't want to live like that, he stakes himself ... if the vampire wants to live like this ... they do better things. It's a win-win situation.

The only 'bad' side for me is still the intention of the iniative, what was their plan with a chipped vampire. Was it just a study object? to look if this was a good alternative of the staking. Or did they like the idea of the power they had ...

Like I said, what is wrong with staking a vampire? Returning the soul is too cruel and the chip is not only unsafe ... it's also easy to use for bad things.

[KingofCretins]

I really have never understood how there are two sides to this argument. Spike was a vampire, a particularly nasty one, who would have hunted and killed innocent people without remorse without that chip. The chip was a poor substitute for a stake, but it wasn't bad. Seriously, do this math... lofty existential value of Spike's "right" to be a predator.... dead people... existential predator thing... dead people. Which weighs most?

Spike would have killed Willow in "The Initiative".
Spike would have killed Xander in "Doomed".
Spike tried to kill (not knowing the gun was fake) Xander and Anya in "The Yoko Factor".
Spike would have killed Buffy in "Out of My Mind".

Existential predator "rights" violations... dead people... hmmm.

[Revan]

Just for arguements sake I'll go with Bad. Because how can something that has no choice but to be evil, evil? Forcing the Chip on it does not make it good anyhow it just stops it doing what it needs to suvive. Remember Good and Evil are just perspectives of different people, vamps etc. Vampires are like animals. Would you say it's bad to put a chip in a Lion's head rather than mercifully killing it? I can't

We say Vampires are evil because they are our predator just like Fish would say dolphins are evil for the smae reason. With a unbiased view you would see what I'm talking about.

And if you say the Chip leads to getting his soul back another chance etc: first off William the man who would be getting the other chance did not commit any crimes. 2 How many vamps and Demons and Vamps tried or got a soul back anyhow none that's how many. Besides the whole point of Demons is that they can't be good because that's what a Demon is. This is arguing from a biased humane point of view

[Enisy]

I really have never understood how there are two sides to this argument. Spike was a vampire, a particularly nasty one, who would have hunted and killed innocent people without remorse without that chip. The chip was a poor substitute for a stake, but it wasn't bad. Seriously, do this math... lofty existential value of Spike's "right" to be a predator.... dead people... existential predator thing... dead people. Which weighs most?

I got the impression, though, that the message of Season 4 was that science and magic are un-mixy things. A supernatural warrior like Buffy versus supernatural threats? Morally stand. Science versus the aforementioned supernatural threats? Controversial and complicated, as proven by New Moon Rising and Primeval, among others.

So I voted for "bad".

[KingofCretins]

Because how can something that has no choice but to be evil, evil?

Thankfully, it's not a question we have to resolve, because we know this isn't true for vampires.

NINA
But vampires kill people, and they—

ANGEL
Can control themselves if they want to. I do it every day, and so can you. I'll help.

Angel 5.03 "Unleashed"

Now, if someone wants to argue he was just simplifying things for Nina's benefit, there is still this...

HARMONY
I'm really, really sorry, you guys. I totally wouldn't have hit you over he head and put you in the closet if I didn't have a really good reason. It's just... I was scared, and...
(sighs)
(to Angel) I know you never wanted me as your assistant, and... OK, I made some bad choices. I mean, it's not like I have a soul. I have to try a lot harder.

Angel 5.09 "Harm's Way"

Surely Harmony isn't oversimplifying -- she's making the statement to the world's foremost leading expert on self-control of vampirism. And, in fact, her point must hit home since Angel does not fire or kill her.

The "predator" metaphor for vampires is always a failing one -- vampire's *comprehend* good and evil and indulge the evil. A lion isn't "evil" when it kills a gazelle -- it has no notion of good or evil. But vampires do. Consider Holden's quote about being connected to evil, how watching Buffy look vulnerable made him want to bite her. It wasn't a predatory reaction, it was the thrill of exploiting her.

[Sosa lola]

I voted "good". Because without that chip in Spike's head, he would never have become the hero he is right now. You all know it's true.

You may argue that his realization that he loves Buffy is the sole reason, but without that chip, Spike would have seduced her in disgusting, evil ways, threatened to kill her friends if she didn't give herself to him... the chip made him grounded and forced him to do whatever Buffy wanted to earn her respect.

[sueworld]

Ah, so you've decided to open that can of worms again over here, have you? :roll:

Well I think you are well aware of what my opinion is on this and going by the poll I stuck up on my own lj today I'm not the only one. This was in response to the original IDW debate rather then quite what you're asking here, although I think the two are closely related, particularly If you're looking at the bigger moral picture.

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/2876/screenshot02dnx2.jpg

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/1286/screenshot02tw7.jpg

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/3493/screenshot01rww2.jpg

As to the chip, well for me it's what it represented and how that power had the ability to be misused etc, so it's not so 'cut and dried' as your intro suggests.

[Vampire in Rug]

Spike would have killed Willow in "The Initiative".
Spike would have killed Xander in "Doomed".
Spike tried to kill (not knowing the gun was fake) Xander and Anya in "The Yoko Factor".
Spike would have killed Buffy in "Out of My Mind".


Seconded.

Also, let's add that girl in the alley from "Smashed" to that list.

The chip was a technology that stopped a monster from hurting people. It was a good thing. I don't see how "restricting a vampire's free will" even enters into it.



Revan, comparing vampires to predatory animals doesn't work because vampires don't just feed off humans to survive -they kill and torture people for enjoyment too. Vampires are inherently evil creatures, unlike say lions who just want to eat. A lion doesn't "get off" from the pain of a zebra. Also as KingofCretins has pointed out, vampires are sentient and quite aware of how harmful thier actions are.

[Vampire in Rug]

Also, Sue I think the questions in your polls are designed to favor one side. The questions and possible choices in the poll looks pretty biased to me.


I think the worst case of this is the line "Yes, all demons are evil and a menace and should be controlled and enslaved to protect mankind." Is it really any surprise nobody voted for this? For starters, nobody was trying to claim all demons are a menace. I love it how you use the phrase "controlled and enslaved." You choose words with negative connotations to discourage people from agreeing with it. The chip didn't "control" or "enslave" Spike, it stopped him from hurting innocent people. Speaking of innocent people, not once in the polls did you mention the innocent lives that the chip prevented Spike from taking.




Quick poll people, who here is Jewish? Your two possible options are "Yes, I am Jewish" and "No! Heil Hitler!" Do you see how one side is going to get more responses than the other?

[sueworld]

Sorry love, but the Initiative did make it very clear what they wanted to do with all demons in the show. We even saw examples of ones that had been 'wired up' and sent off to attack Buffy.

Also we saw some back story of where this idea came from in 'Why we fight', pushing home the point about a Vampire slave army that the Nazis wanted to create, or have you forgotten?

The chip didn't "control" or "enslave" Spike, it stopped him from hurting innocent people. Eh, of course they did. He was their 'prototype'. For right or for wrong they had abducted him and kept him locked up whilst they operated on his brain. What would you call it?

Anyhoo what I'm concerned about is the bigger picture. Do you really think that the military were doing any of this out of the goodness of their heart? Do you think they would just stop with vampires, or would others suffer a similar fate , maybe even Slayers and any Human that didn't 'play ball'? Remember they wanted to use these creatures for battle as made clear later in the season and then again in AtS so I wouldn't have put anything past them in wanting to extend their reach.

I think based on what we saw in the show the wording on my poll was pretty fair really. Also some questions have been asked with a touch of humour as I hope you've noticed. :lol:

[Vampire in Rug]

Sorry love, but the Initiative did make it very clear what they wanted to do with all demons in the show. We even saw examples of ones that had been 'wired up' and sent off to attack Buffy.


I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that the "wired up" demons that the Initiative sent after Buffy weren't the nicest of guys to begin with. As far as as chipping/enslaving all demons, that was done out of ignorence rather than malace. Not an excuse I know, but I can understand why they might think that. (Plus they'd be in the right a good 90% of the time. Name me one "harmless" species of demon and I'll name you ten other nasty ones. Unfortunetly for poor guys like Lorne and Merl they are in the tiny minority when it comes to demons. Most demon species could IMO be experimentd on with no ethical dilemas.)

Eh, of course they did. He was their 'prototype'. For right or for wrong they had abducted him and kept him locked up whilst they operated on his brain. What would you call it.

I'd call it putting a serial killer in jail. The chip didn't turn him into a mindless drone, he still had free will, he just couldn't hurt anyone. This is the only thing the chip did -it hurt him when he was trying to hurt someone else. Its only function was to shock him into not hurting humans. What the Initative intended to eventually do with Spike is a whole nother kettle of fish but as for the chip itself (*points to title of thread*) I'm all for the idea of putting chips in vampire heads.

Anyhoo what I'm concerned about is the bigger picture. Do you really think that the military were doing any of this out of the goodness of their heart?

I'm sure protecting civilains was a part of thier plan. It's not a stretch to assume that the Initiative didn't approve of students being eaten by vampires.

Do you think they would just stop with vampires, or would others suffer a similar fate , maybe even Slayers and any Human that didn't 'play ball'?

Slayers? Bearing in mind this is season 4 and Faith was still a crazy murderur, I don't see why putting a chip in her head would be a bad thing. I mean if it's going to protect innocent lives...

As for doing it to Slayers out of principle? Well once again, if they did that it would probably be out of ignorence. It's a moot point anyway seeing as how viewing Slayers as "demonic" or "subhuman" sounds more in line with Twilight than it does with the Initiative. The two organizations have some similarities, but they are not the same thing. For a while the Initiative worked alongside Buffy, so I doubt they view her as subhuman. Walsh tried to kill her because of her influence over Riley, it had nothing to do with her being the Slayer.

As for Joe Regular who doesn't "play ball"? I don't think so. That's speculation in its purest form.

[sueworld]

I'm sure protecting civilains was a part of thier plan. It's not a stretch to assume that the Initiative didn't approve of students being eaten by vampires.


This being the same organization that were quite happy torturing Oz, trying to kill Buffy and who stuck a chip in Riley and fed him and his team body altering drugs without their knowledge. Yeah, sounds like they could really be trusted to do whats right. :roll:

Walsh tried to kill her because of her influence over Riley, it had nothing to do with her being the Slayer.


Oh thats alright then....:roll:

Slayers? Bearing in mind this is season 4 and Faith was still a crazy murderer, I don't see why putting a chip in her head would be a bad thing. I mean if it's going to protect innocent lives..

*sigh* I can't even begin to explain to you whats wrong with that idea......

I know you're looking at the original thread over on IDW that started all this. I suggest you go and look at Nata's posts over there as she manages to explain my problem with this whole idea far better then I can. :D

[Vampire in Rug]

This being the same organization that were quite happy torturing Oz, trying to kill Buffy and who stuck a chip in Riley and fed him and his team body altering drugs without their knowledge. Yeah, sounds like they could really be trusted to do whats right.

Oz is a werewolf who was on a rampage through a college. I don't approve of what they did to him, but I can understand why they might do it and if anything it supports my point that the Initiative does not approve of monsters eating people.

Putting a chip in Riley and feeding him drugs was not cool at all. But it was the result of Maggie Walsh's meddling. That's one person, not the whole organization. I'm pretty sure Walsh (and Adam) were the only ones who knew about the (unrealisticly stupid) chip in Riley's heart.

As for trying to kill Buffy, once again that was Walsh's doing. Walsh did it because she believed that Buffy was influencing Riley. I never said this was right, I was pointing out that it had nothing to do with Buffy being the Slayer. The Initiative had no problems with the Slayer. The Initiative never showed any interest in putting a chip in Buffy's head. You seem to be confusing the Initiative with Twilight.

*sigh* I can't even begin to explain to you whats wrong with that idea......

Please try.

[sueworld]

Please try.

Lets just say it involves a little thing call 'free will' and leave it at that. To be honest I'm quite stunned that someone would even think doing that to another human is would be a good idea. :shocked2:

You seem to have a lot of faith in a secret organization that was shown to be morally very, very dodgey at best which is quite surprising given how they were depicted in that season. :err:

[Vampire in Rug]

Lets just say it involves a little thing call 'free will' and leave it at that. To be honest I'm quite stunned that someone would even think doing that to another human is would be a good idea. :shocked2:

Free will? Once again, we're back to the question of whether someone's right to free will outweighs Joe Average's right to safety. I'd argue that Joe Average has the right to walk down the street without getting drained by Spike or his neck snapped by Faith.

I know Faith is a popular character, but try to keep in mind this is season four. She wasn't some poor misguided little girl, she was a wanted murderer and a horrible person. I would not feel safe living in Sunnydale if season three or four Faith was about. If Faith had a chip back then, maybe some of the people she killed would still be alive.

You seem to have a lot of faith in a secret organization that was shown to be morally very, very dodgey at best which is quite surprising given how they were depicted in that season. :err:

No, I just don't view them as being pure evil. I see them as an organization that tried to do something good, but ultimetly went about it the wrong way due to some very corrupt people at the top. I think they did achieve a few good things though, mainly the invention of Spike's chip.

[sueworld]

Free will? Once again, we're back to the question of whether someone's right to free will outweighs Joe Average's right to safety. I'd argue that Joe Average has the right to walk down the street without getting drained by Spike or his neck snapped by Faith.

I know Faith is a popular character, but try to keep in mind this is season four. She wasn't some poor misguided little girl, she was a wanted murderer and a horrible person. I would not feel safe living in Sunnydale if season three or four Faith was about. If Faith had a chip back then, maybe some of the people she killed would still be alive.

But she's not a demon, she's a human being. Yes a Slayer, but she's capable of learning right from wrong, she has soul for a start. In the end she found her own path to redemption without being wired up to the mains and being turned into an army 'tinker toy'. :roll:

Also considering you don't seem to have a problem chipping her, where where would it stop eh? Any human that does a crime, those in opposing political governments?

Can you see now why I said it's only a small hop from chipping demons to the human population?

You don't even seem to understand that Faith is entitled to use her own free will like anyone else is entitled to which is quite surprising to say the least. :(

[Vampire in Rug]

This whole subject regarding Faith is pretty speculative seeing as how the Initiative never showed any sort of indication that they didn't like Slayers or that they wanted to force chips into Slayers. I only brought her up as an extreme example where the Initiative *might* for some reason want to do it.

Some other things to consider: Faith cannot be dealt with by the law. We've seen how easily she can break out of prison if she feels like it. Faith eventually found a path to redemption of her own accord. Great. Now what if she didn't? How can someone like Faith be dealt with? How high many people should she be allowed to kill before something has to be done?

This is getting pretty off topic but what I'm trying to get at is: Faith was a threat that the human world was not equiped to deal with. Something like a chip would be a non-violent solution to the problem. I don't think that putting a chip in the head of a renegade slayer is really that bad of an idea.

And I think it's a bit of a stretch to make the connection between chipping a dangerous, superpowered threat to chipping/enslaving an average human being.

[sueworld]

It's nearly 2am over here, so I'm getting too tired to keep this going, so I'll end on this.

How can someone like Faith be dealt with?

The Watcher council or Buffy herself as we saw in the series. Now there's a bucket full of Slayers with Buffy in season 8, so no problem I would have thought.

I'll also end on part of the speech that we hear as a voice over by one of the government suits in Primeval...

"This was an experiment. The
Initiative represented the government's
interest in not only controlling the
Otherworldly Menace, but in
harnessing its power for our
own military purposes.

Nuff said really.

[Vampire in Rug]

Um... Faith actually turned herself into jail. That was how that situation was resolved. And the superpowered killer turning herself in is not a situation you can exactly rely on. Caleb anyone? Gigi? Roden? Rack? Warren? Amy?

The Watcher's Council tried to kill Faith, as did Buffy. Both situations are very controversial with the fanbase (although I don't see why, but that's a discussion for another thread). Surely a chip would be better than killing someone?

Not only did the Watcher's Council and Buffy both resort to trying to kill Faith, they both *failed*. The situation was only resolved when she turned herself in.



"This was an experiment. The Initiative represented the government's interest in not only controlling the Otherworldly Menace, but in harnessing its power for our own military purposes."

If a reasonable measure of control can be exerted over the vampires, why not? It would save human soldiers from being killed.

[sueworld]

Nighty-Night........:)

I'm sure someone else will pick up where I left off. If not go over to IDW and say all this to Nata. I'm sure she can put both our cases forward as I'm about to fall over.

[kana]

My main issue is the side point that KoC argued and that is whether the chip was an adequate substitute for staking.

Ok let's assume that vampires have no rights then in this case it would be more effective to stake them rather than keep them alive. Although vampires have free will, they would be more likely choose an action that would harm humans than help them. Now as we've seen from episodes such as 'Soulless' and 'The Yoko Factor' a vampires doesn't have to use fangs to cause damage, so while the chip can limit the damage a vampire can do, it doesn't guarantee a champion nor does it even guarantee safety for humankind.

Although this was partially the case for Spike it doesn't mean that a more ruthless vampire may follow through with their attempts to dechip themselves or indeed have more nefarious reasons for the manipulating the good and plenties.

Also is chipping every single vampire a viable and practical option? Surely jamming wooden stakes in their heart would be better for humanity.

Of course this is assuming vampires have little if any rights. If they do, it opens up another can of worms of the general idea of experimenting on 'subjects' rather than objects'.

I suppose there may be some positives if vampires are as adaptable as Spike and indeed not that ruthless they may have the proprensity for helping others, even if their intentions are less than altruistic.

[vampmogs]

I got the impression, though, that the message of Season 4 was that science and magic are un-mixy things. A supernatural warrior like Buffy versus supernatural threats? Morally stand. Science versus the aforementioned supernatural threats? Controversial and complicated, as proven by New Moon Rising and Primeval, among others.

So I voted for "bad".

We were also given the impression in season five's 'Out of My Mind' that removing the chip from Spike's head would be a *bad* thing. So if we're going to base our arguments on how the show chose to present something, it presented the chip as a positive and removing it a negative.

[sueworld]

As far as Spike was concerned. He was the only 'test subject' that we followed because obviously it was a plot device to get Spike integrated into the Scoobs. But Spike may have been unique in being able to turn around his 'little handicap'.

Thats like saying in an experiment we only bothered to look at one test result and won't bother with the rest.

As far as the bigger picture is concerned I don't believe it was such a great idea.

I agree with enisy I think the Initiative were shown to be one of the big bads that season, or at the very least extremely misguided.
They were shown after all to be a threat to the Scoobies themselves to the degree that they had to go and hide and the fact that Riley himself had been chipped, fed drugs without his knowledge or consent and Buffy's life threatened.


WARD

"This was an experiment. The
Initiative represented the government's
interest in not only controlling the
Otherworldly Menace, but in
harnessing its power for our
own military purposes. It is
the considered opinion of this
council that the experiment has failed.

Once the prototype took control of
the complex our soldiers suffered a
forty percent casualty rate, and it
seems that it was only through the
actions of a deserter…

… and a group of civilian insurrectionists
that our losses were not total. I trust the
irony of that is not lost on any of us.

Maggie Walsh's vision was brilliant,
but ultimately insupportable. The
demons cannot be harnessed, cannot
be controlled.

It is therefore our recommendation
that this project be terminated, and
all records concerning it expunged.
The soldiers will be debriefed, standard
confidentiality clause. Civilians will be
monitored, and we have the usual
measures prepared should they
try to go public. We don't think they will.

The Initiative itself will be filled in with
concrete. Burn it down, gentlemen.
Burn it down and salt the earth.

That's all."

[vampmogs]

They were shown after all to be a threat to the Scoobies themselves to the degree that they had to go and hide and the fact that Riley himself had been chipped, fed drugs without his knowledge or consent and Buffy's life threatened.

You're confusing *The Initinative* with *Maggie Walsh.* Whilst it makes sense that the suits would have known about her feeding them drugs, they did not know about her personal vendetta that caused Buffy to go into hiding.. hence Buffy coming out of hiding after Adam murdered Maggie.

In 'Primeval' the suits say they don't even know who Buffy is, all they have is a name. And if they were hell bent on capturing her, would have ordered the soldiers to do so many times. Even the doctor states that "the Initinative has no interest in eliminating the slayer" and that it was Maggie's personal vendetta. Buffy socialises with the soldiers in ‘Where the Wild Things Are’ and continues to spend time in their fraternity house after Maggie was killed.

The Initinative didn’t even go searching for Buffy after she broke into their base and rescued Oz, held their general captive and struck a guard. They didn’t make any attempts to legally arrest her until she broke in the third time.

[sueworld]

Personally I do believe that they partially knew what Walsh was doing as it would fit in with their approach so far.

Also in a story sense Joss was showing us how technology can be misused and when it came to the supernatural it had no place trying to control things it didn't understand.

That was Buffy's territory after all.

[vampmogs]

Personally I do believe that they partially knew what Walsh was doing as it would fit in with their approach so far.

Then why not follow it up? Why allow Buffy to continue living her life in Sunnydale, why not hunt her down and arrest her after she already illegally trespassed on government property *twice*? Why not arrest her when she physically assaults a government officer or threatens to kill another high ranking officer? Why pretend to the general in 'The Yoko Factor' that they don't know anything about her?

More importantly, why would Maggie plot to have her murdered behind her back if she had the support of the suits? She'd have simply ordered a squad of her men to take Buffy out, instead she had to do it far more sneaky?

It doesn’t add up. There’s no logical reason as to why the Initinative wouldn’t hunt after Buffy from ‘Goodbye Iowa’ right through to ‘Primeval’ if that’s what they really wanted. Instead they left her alone. The hunt stopped after Maggie was killed because it was her personal vendetta.

Also in a story sense Joss was showing us how technology can be misused and when it came to the supernatural it had no place trying to control things it didn't understand.

I think that’s an over simplification. The show presented the majority of the government and it’s technology as bad and messing with things it shouldn’t. What it didn’t present negatively were the chip, or even the Taser guns, Buffy herself uses one of them and shoots down any suggestion she for any reason shouldn’t because they aren’t “in the slayer handbook.” In fact it's a taser gun that saves Buffy's life in 'Hush' when Riley uses it to blast away a Gentleman who's about to stab her. And the chip, well given the how it was presented in both ‘Out of My Mind’ and ‘Smashed’ as something sinister and bad for Spike to have it removed or stopped working, I think it’s pretty clear what they thought of the chip. Not to mention the fact in ‘Cursh’ it’s presented as a negative when Dru tells Spike he can get over it.

[sueworld]

Then why not follow it up? Why allow Buffy to continue living her life in Sunnydale, why not hunt her down and arrest her after she already illegally trespassed on government property *twice*? Why not arrest her when she physically assaults a government officer or threatens to kill another high ranking officer? Why pretend to the general in 'The Yoko Factor' that they don't know anything about her?

I don't know. Strangely enough I didn't write this. :roll:

I think that’s an over simplification. The show presented the majority of the government and it’s technology as bad and messing with things it shouldn’t. What it didn’t present negatively were the chip, or even the Taser guns,

When it comes to fire arms of any kind Buffy once said something along the lines of "nothing good ever came of one of those".

As to Spikes chip I've already addressed that with my comments above.

[vampmogs]

I don't know. Strangely enough I didn't write this. :roll:

The answer is pretty simple.. their personal objections differed to that of Maggie Walsh's.. It was a rhetorical question.... the answer is in that they didn't..

When it comes to fire arms of any kind Buffy once said something along the lines of "nothing good ever came of one of those".

She's talking about traditional firearms. Buffy supports the Taser gun in 'This Years Girl.' It's not your traditional gun, just because it looks like one. It stuns and disorientates the victim, it doesn't kill them. The same way Buffy was fine to use a gun shaped Taser blaster in 'The Long Way Home' used to break through mystical barriers. Buffy has a problem with a very specific group of firearms, she isn't against using anything that happens to resemble a gun.. thankgod, or Giles, Willow and Buffy would have all been killed by Oz in 'Pangs' as Willow wouldn't have had a tranq gun handy to fire at Oz as he rushes at them.

[sueworld]

The answer is pretty simple.. their personal objections differed to that of Maggie Walsh's.. It was a rhetorical question.... the answer is in that they didn't..

As you say, we don't know that for certain, eh? They did call her ideas brilliant by the way.

I see Buffy as an 'anti gun show' myself. The same way as I view Dr Who, because although there is gun play in there, it's mainly fantasy type weapons and the main hero of the piece doesn't approve/use them unless put under extreme duress.

Thats why I believe Joss showed Warren using a normal fire arm to kill Tara. It became more 'real' breaking through the fantasy elements of this verse and acting as a terrible reminder of how devastating these objects can be in the wrong hands.

[vampmogs]

As you say, we don't know that for certain, eh? They did call her ideas brilliant by the way.

If they don’t come after Buffy, they obviously didn’t want to? How much more certain do we need to be? There’s no reasonable or logical explanation as to why they wouldn’t go after her if that was their intentions. It can’t really get much more simpler than that. It’s like me saying “I think you’ve been stalking me” when you’ve never once left your chair or followed me in anyway, clearly I’d be wrong. It wouldn't be a case of "we don't know for sure" when it's plain and simple, you never followed me, thus you never stalked me or wanted to stalk me or, you would.

I see Buffy as an 'anti gun show' myself. The same way as I view Dr Who, because although there is gun play in there, it's mainly fantasy type weapons and the main hero of the piece doesn't approve/use them unless put under extreme duress.

Thats why I believe Joss showed Warren using a normal fire arm to kill Tara. It became more 'real' breaking through the fantasy elements of this verse and acting as a terrible reminder of how devastating these objects can be in the wrong hands.

I agree, typically it's anti gun. Joss stated the reason they didn't have the characters use guns because they didn't want to depict high school kids packing firearms in the high school library, it'd sent the wrong message.

But the show has Buffy endorsing firearms that aren't typical guns. They have a number of characters, Buffy, Giles, Faith, Xander and Giles all sporting a tranq gun at various times in the show, Riley handle a normal gun in 'As You Were' Buffy handle the taser gun throughout season four, in such episodes as 'The Yoko Factor' and 'The I In Team' and have her handling a gun shaped barrier destroyer in 'The Long Way Home.'

She's not strictly against anything gun shaped, or she wouldn't have used several of the devices mentioned above, she's just against the general practice of normal guns, mainly because they'd do more harm to her than they ever would a vampire.

[sueworld]

But the show has Buffy endorsing firearms that aren't typical guns

Not really. They've been used when they have to and only briefly. We associate this verse with antique style weaponry more then anything else.

If they don’t come after Buffy, they obviously didn’t want to?

Maybe they didn't ant to chance their arm too far incase it drew too much unwanted attention to themselves by then?

[vampmogs]

Not really. They've been used when they have to and only briefly. We associate this verse with antique style weaponry more then anything else.

Buffy has used a tranq gun in four episodes I can think of just in my head, there may be more. We know Giles kept one under his desk, we've seen Willow use it on at least two occasions, Faith once and Xander be prepared to use one once. That's a bit more then only briefly, just like a crossbow or a stake it's a weapon they're prepared to use often.

I agree, generally it's more antique style weapons Buffy is associated with, I actually like that better they're more interesting to me and are a nice contrast to the modern kids, *but* Buffy evidently, isn't opposed to anything resembling a firearm.

Maybe they didn't ant to chance their arm too far incase it drew too much unwanted attention to themselves by then?

I don't see why they'd believe going after Buffy would draw any more attention to themselves than they already had? They're perfectly ok with patrolling the UC Sunnydale Campus as well as the woods and the cemetery, they walked right in front of the Scooby gang in 'Fear Itself.' They were also perfectly fine with storming Buffy's dorm building and letting everyone see them. They were also fine with raiding cemeteries in vehicles looking for the Pulgara they believed to have murdered Maggie Walsh. Why would secretly trying to capture or kill Buffy draw any more attention to them to anything else they'd already done? Especially when they make it clear at the end of 'Primeval' they never believed for a second Buffy would go public about the Initinative.

[kana]

As far as Spike was concerned. He was the only 'test subject' that we followed because obviously it was a plot device to get Spike integrated into the Scoobs. But Spike may have been unique in being able to turn around his 'little handicap'.



This is essentially what I was saying before. We know Spike didn't cause much harm with the chip in his head but isn't to say this would be the case for all vamps. Spike happened to be a) an extreme, almost byronic romantic, b) adaptable and let us not forget Spike has compromised with the side of good to get what he wants without being incapcitated in the way he was with the chip (or the way Angelus was in the cage) and c) not to hold evil as a strong belief system.

In any case we only have one example for the results of the chip and as its been said, we cannot necessarily attribute all of Spike positive actions to the chip itself.

Of course all this is based on the argument that vampires are more or less evil and have no rights. I still believe staking, therefore, is overall a better method of controlling the threat of vampirism. The risk of ruthless vamps and the practical means to moniter and control their behaviour is not really beneficial to mankind. Overall I voted that there is a reasonable argument for both. Vampires can be used perhaps for positive purposes and chipping does limit the damage and as I've said it doesn't negate it altogether. I vote for staking.

[sueworld]

Well If I were a Vampire I'd rather have a fighting chance with a Slayer and maybe end up in the contents of an ashtray, then be turned into an army tinker toy for eternity. :roll:

[KingofCretins]

Spike's free will doesn't matter, the agenda of the Initiative doesn't matter. If Spike isn't chipped, Willow dies in "The Initiative". What argument can even remotely stand up to that? Who cares if Spike is deprived of the "right" (which he doesn't have, totally imaginary) to kill things as he wishes?

[sueworld]

I'm not talking a bout Spike pres say, but whether as a concept it was a morally right thing to do, or in the long haul really worked.

At the end of season 4 we saw how badly controlling demons that way had gone. Even the Initiative knew by that time chipping was pointless.

The Slayer and her stake was still the most effective way to deal with any demon threat however 'quaint' that may seem to them.

[icecreamkiller]

I vote good. See, I recognize that vampires have free will, but doesn't saying that chipping demons is wrong because they have free will basically the same as saying that putting murderers in prison is wrong, too? Murderers are human beings, therefore they're endowed with free will. It doesn't mean they should be allowed to walk around hurting whoever they please. A chip isn't a brainwashing device per se, it's a restriction and a method of coercion. It can be used as a rehabilitating tool - which it actually was, even if unintentionally. The chip played an enormous part in turning Spike from murderer to champion. It didn't stop Spike from doing anything, except hurt humans. The only downside I can see to that is that he'd be defenseless against say, a Slayer or someone who caught him unawares, but other than that, I'd bet he'd be able to use all his other superpowers (such as superhuman speed and agility) to get away from anyone that would try to hurt him.

And a question, because I'm just curious - if it's wrong to put a restriction on a vampire, why is it acceptable for Buffy to just kill them outright?

[sueworld]

Because a quick clean death is maybe better then being turned into something that means you can't function as the predator you once were, as odd as that may seem. This is a supernatural entity we are talking about after all.

I know some here won't agree but I personally think Spike was a fluke and that most Vamps would either find a way round it as some have already said and still be a threat, and some would just starve to death or slowly go insane.

I think Buffy dealing with the Supernatural in her own way is preferable. Also the Initiative weren't doing this for the good of mankind, they wanted to create 'wet work' machines that could have military applications. Basically carrying on the 'good work' from where the Nazis left off in 'Why we Fight', which I think is unacceptable and could eventually lead to all sorts of misuses of that power.

Look at what they did to Riley for example.

[kana]

I argued that the rights of the vampire are irrelavent. Either way the chip was necessarily the best idea. If vampires have rights, it wouldn't be right for the vamp to be forced against it's natural urges but if they have no rights then it would be more practical to kill them anyway. Vamps can cause damage without fangs if one is to argue they are truly evil. If Spike was trapped and killed instead of chipped, Willow would still be alive.

[sueworld]

If Spike was trapped and killed instead of chipped, Willow would still be alive.

Isn't Wilow still alive anyway?

[Vampire in Rug]

People keep saying that Spike was a fluke and that other vampires would be more determined to find a way around the chip.

I think that some vampires (Angelus, the Master and Luke come to mind) are so commited to evil that even with a chip their desires and behavior wouldn't change like Spike's did.

However, I think the "saint of evil" type persona isn't as common among vampires as people seem to think. I think that the majority of vampires would change thier behavior if it was in their best interests. Look how easy it was for Angel to impliment his "no human blood policy" over the vampires at Wolfram and Hart. It all comes down to the personality of the individual vampire and while I agree that Spike had more humanity in him than most vampires, lets also remember that he was more needlessly evil than most vampires as well. If Spike can change his behavior with the chip, I don't see why other "average Joe" vampires couldn't as well.

[kana]

Isn't Wilow still alive anyway?

Lol, Sue, hun, that's the point I was making. Some were arguing that the chip saved Willow's life. While that is true, if Spike was killed instead of chipped the same would be true. Therefore, why waste time on a chip?

I think that some vampires (Angelus, the Master and Luke come to mind) are so commited to evil that even with a chip their desires and behavior wouldn't change like Spike's did.

Indeed, it's an x factor, right? We could have an extremely ruthless vamp or a useless vamp who kills himself or a vamp who doesn't do much with his existence but doesn't really help anyone or perhaps terrorizes, innocent or benovolent demons to get get what it wants, but...

However, I think the "saint of evil" type persona isn't as common among vampires as people seem to think. I think that the majority of vampires would change thier behavior if it was in their best interests. Look how easy it was for Angel to impliment his "no human blood policy" over the vampires at Wolfram and Hart. It all comes down to the personality of the individual vampire and while I agree that Spike had more humanity in him than most vampires, lets also remember that he was more needlessly evil than most vampires as well. If Spike can change his behavior with the chip, I don't see why other "average Joe" vampires couldn't as well.


...yes a vampire may become a hero as such or at least to capacity that Spike has, but like I said, you'd have to moniter them and that's most likely what the Initiative intended to do. I'm arguing that, that may be more trouble than it's worth. I'm still arguing that if a vampire has no rights, then killing them a way of ensuring they cause no damage.

[sueworld]

Lol, Sue, hun, that's the point I was making. Some were arguing that the chip saved Willow's life. While that is true, if Spike was killed instead of chipped the same would be true. Therefore, why waste time on a chip?

Yep, can't argue with that logic. :roll:

[Vampire in Rug]

Because a quick clean death is maybe better then being turned into something that means you can't function as the predator you once were, as odd as that may seem. This is a supernatural entity we are talking about after all.


I don't think that having a wooden stake driven through your ribcage is as quick and clean as most people would believe. We've seen some vampires still alive for a few moments after the staking, and personally believe that those few moments would be excruciating. Quite possibly just as bad as the electric shocks a vampire would recieve from the chip. Yes I know it's almost instantanious when a vampire bursts into dust, but I still think that it would hurt having something jammed into your chest and to actually experience that, the single moment might seem like an eternity. Buffy sometimes uses broken peices of wood that aren't even sharp.

And lets not forget how indescribably painful it would be for a vampire to die from sunlight, holy water or fire.

Just to play devil's advocate, if vampires do have a "right" over thier own life, I think the chip would be a much more humane option.

Isn't Wilow still alive anyway?

Pretty sure that's was a typo for whoever wrote that.

I think Buffy dealing with the Supernatural in her own way is preferable. Also the Initiative weren't doing this for the good of mankind, they wanted to create 'wet work' machines that could have military applications. Basically carrying on the 'good work' from where the Nazis left off in 'Why we Fight', which I think is unacceptable and could eventually lead to all sorts of misuses of that power.


Ultimatly, the Initiative did think what it was doing was for the good of mankind. Whether they were right or not is another matter, but do you think that the "suits" behind it all were sitting on thier thrones cackling evily about how their plan to bring about the ruination of mankind was almost complete? No.

And if the government and military knows about the supernatural world, do you think it would be responsible of them to just ignore it? Do you think the military should just sit on it's ass and do nothing while being quite aware of vampires and demons?

As far as carrying on the good work from where the Nazi's left off, I must have missed the part where the Initiative was planning on using vampires to invade Poland or eliminate the Jews.

[Vampire in Rug]

Some were arguing that the chip saved Willow's life. While that is true, if Spike was killed instead of chipped the same would be true. Therefore, why waste time on a chip?

Because that type of experiment had never been performed on a vampire before and the Initiative wanted to see what would happen.

Yes, Willow would have been saved just as easy by dusting Spike, but that's kinda besides the point.

[kana]

Because that type of experiment had never been performed on a vampire before and the Initiative wanted to see what would happen.

Yes, Willow would have been saved just as easy by dusting Spike, but that's kinda besides the point.

It's completely the point because I'm arguing what was the point of the chip? Is it simply curiosity's sake? With the Initiative and/or Maggie Walsh? I'm not sure. I've argued that as defense against vampires it wouldn't be a practical as killing them. It may have been Sue that raised the issue that if this isn't the case then maybe a more nefarious use for it. This does seem to raise a moral quagmire. This is why I was on the fence, lol, again. I do think both the intentions of the chip and the possible consequences are important.

We know that whether the Initiative was good, evil or misguided, the operation was instable at best and with only hints of their intentions in eps such as 'Why we Fight', I'm reluctant to resign myself to opinion their interests are positive or negative.

Hmmm, I'm still not sure. The chip: a glorified science experiment? Geared towards the overall protection of mankind? Or was it something similar to what the Nazis were doing in 'Why We Fight?' Answers to these question could possibly sway me, one way or the other.

[sueworld]

Well as I said before, here's what one of said 'suits' says at the end of Primevil...



Quote:
"This was an experiment. The
Initiative represented the government's
interest in not only controlling the
Otherworldly Menace, but in
harnessing its power for our
own military purposes.

Take that how you will. I see it more akin to what the Nazis were trying to achieve myself, which was creating an army of slave demons to fight for them.

In 'why we fight' we learn that Spike and the rest on board the sub where to be the 'slave generals' to lead other vampires.

[Vampire in Rug]

The Initative was primarily a research/science facility rather then a military one. I assume curiosity was a large part of why they chipped Spike. What would happen? Who knows. They were trying to learn about demons and vampires, what they were capable of and to what extent thier behavior could be modified.

We already know what happens when you stake a vampire. Yes, this eliminates the threat 100% of the time. What happens when you put a behavioral modification chip into a vampire? I think that's what the Initiative was trying to find out. As for their long term goals, that's a little more ambiguous.

Given that the Initiative was a branch within the US military, I think we can agree that the organization wasn't trying to do any weird nazi crap with the chip. Adam's master race, the chip in Riley's heart and the wired up demons that attacked Buffy was all Maggie Walsh's doing. One bad person who unfortunetly was pretty high on the chain of command.

[sueworld]

"but in
harnessing its power for our
own military purposes."

Military as in using for the purposes of war. Not research for the sake of it, and that comes from the 'horses mouth' so to speak.

[Vampire in Rug]

Yes, but the Initiative was primarily a research facility. I'm sure the government eventually wanted to use the technology for thier military purposes (I don't think this is a bad thing), but I'm sure testing and research was also a large part of that. Because how were they supposed to perfect the chip without testing it in a scientific way?

I'm not trying to argue that the Initiative didn't want to eventually use thier tech for the military purposes this was a response to somebody who was wondering why the Initiative didn't just stake Spike when it would serve the same purpose. Because it wouldn't.

[sueworld]

Yes, but the Initiative was primarily a research facility.

That was never established in the show to the best of my knowledge. It was research that was aimed at military use as said in the above quote not research for the sake of it.

[vampmogs]

Is there anything particularly wrong with using vampires in the military if your military purposes are good ones? Didn't Buffy basically do exactly the same thing when she used Spike, as according to her, he was one of the strongest warriors she had, to fight in her war against the First?

I'm sure some poor soul fighting in Afghanistan wouldn't hate to have a super powered fighting machine by their side when fighting against a tirade of Taliban extremists. And yes I'm sure I've just opened up a whole other can of worms here but I think someone had to at least ask it?

In an ideal world, war wouldn't exist, the military wouldn't need to exist, but when dealing with people, like terrorists, who use violence to achieve their goals unfortunately you have to often fight back with violence to prevent them. Is there anything particularly wrong with using evil soulless demons, who we all agree should be killed anyway, to basically do some good before they die? To be something more than a damnation on the world?

The Nazi's goals were incredibly different from other governments and their goals. And whilst I'm sure the US military isn't a beacon of all that's good and pure, it's far to easy to bash sometimes. I believe that the work they're doing in Afghanistan in particular, along with the Australian forces and British forces, is worth doing. It wouldn't be that bad for a lot of the people fighting over there, in the Buffyverse, to have some supernatural forces giving them a hand.

[sueworld]

The Nazi's goals were incredibly different from other governments and their goals.

In this fantasy story, maybe not. Having an idea derive from the Nazis is often seen as 'shorthand' for the writer saying that this is a very bad idea thats been carried on here.

Remember I'm talking about what we saw in both season 4 and 'wwf' where the over all tone was the whole 'enslave the demons' bit was seen as a very dodgy idea at best.

[Sosa lola]

Lol, Sue, hun, that's the point I was making. Some were arguing that the chip saved Willow's life. While that is true, if Spike was killed instead of chipped the same would be true. Therefore, why waste time on a chip?

But without the chip, Spike wouldn't have become the hero he is today, saving so many lives and being a major help to Buffy and Angel. So, chipped Spike served the world more than a killed!Spike. I'd really love to see a chipped Angelus living in Sunnydale, the changes he will endure and how will that help him develop into a better vampire. I think he'll take more time than Spike, seeing as romance and Love's Bitch were other big factors to help him change into better.

[sueworld]

I'd really love to see a chipped Angelus living in Sunnydale, the changes he will endure and how will that help him develop into a better vampire. I think he'll take more time than Spike, seeing as romance and Love's Bitch were other big factors to help him change into better.

I've had this discussion on lj, and we came to the conclusion that Angelus would not make a good candidate. Angel/Angelus would rather break then bend I fear.

Also I believe his innate cunning would find a way round it and he'd end up doing as much damage to others around him as if he didn't have it.

[kana]

The main issue I have with using vamps in the military is the message we see towards to the end of Season 4. While it's a system that could work, the instability might make a bad situation worse. Steering away from the political allegories, lol, I still think the intention of what they are using the research for is important to me. I suppose at best we can only view it as a possibly positive or overall, a morally ambiguous move.

I suppose (and perhaps this was point Sue was making) their success depends on how easy they are able to control and harness the world of the supernatural. I still prefer Tara's general approach of the synergy of forces working in harmony. Say what you like about Walsh or the Initiative, one of their main follies was arrogance. I need to trust the user of technology to endorse their 'mission'.

[sueworld]

Say what you like about Walsh or the Initiative, one of their main follies was arrogance. I need to trust the user of technology to endorse their 'mission'.

Yeah, I think arrogance is the key word here. I believe thats part of the message that Joss was shooting at us.

The army thought they knew it all, and thought the supernatural could be taken and tamed for their own purposes when in reality they found out that they had 'bitten off more then they could chew'.

[buffyholic]

I believe it´s wrong because just putting a chip in his head doesn´t imply that he is gonna be all good and noble. It´s like Buffy says in Crush, that Spike is like a serial killer in jail. But also the chip is good because it allows Spike to undergo major changes. First, because of his love for Buffy but then when he has a soul, it allows him to became truly selfless. Again, Buffy then says to Giles in "First Date", that the chip was wrong and that evil cannot be fought with evil.
So, I voted "undecided".

[sueworld]

Again, Buffy then says to Giles in "First Date", that the chip was wrong and that evil cannot be fought with evil.
So, I voted "undecided".

Good quote. I'd forgotten that one.

[hawkedup]

I almost got into this again. Almost.

I’d just like to state that our argument over at the IDW board was never that the chip was GOOD. Our argument centralized around the idea that the chip was neither good nor evil in itself. It had both positive and negative applications, just like everything else in this world. Just like the Initiative did some evil things but it also did some good things.

Also, a lot of positive scientific advancements came from and through Nazi scientists that the Allied powers pardoned after WWII.

My main point here: Things are not always black-and-white.

Now, I retreat from this thread never to return (hopefully).

[vampmogs]

Good quote. I'd forgotten that one.

Buffy thought it was wrong to keep Spike with a soul chipped, that's the scene that I brought up originally on IDW that started the whole debate. She never had a problem it being in a soulless Spike, in fact as Dawn states, she was worried he'd find a way to remove it.

And she's incredibly foolish to state such a thing. Giles had a point, they had no possible idea to know wether or not a new chip would be able to constrain Spike should the First activate his trigger again. We found out in 'The Killer In Me' that chip had been malfunctioning. Buffy's resilience to give it a go, when innocent people's lives were on the line was incredibly foolish and irresponsible. She responds to Giles saying he'll never be a good man if they don't give him a chance which is just utter rubbish, wether Spike's a good person or not it's irrelevant to wether or not the First can trigger him or not, his goodness doesn't remotely play a part in being able to resist the First's brainwashing capabilities.

[Sosa lola]

Buffy thought it was wrong to keep Spike with a soul chipped, that's the scene that I brought up originally on IDW that started the whole debate. She never had a problem it being in a soulless Spike, in fact as Dawn states, she was worried he'd find a way to remove it.

And she's incredibly foolish to state such a thing. Giles had a point, they had no possible idea to know wether or not a new chip would be able to constrain Spike should the First activate his trigger again. We found out in 'The Killer In Me' that chip had been malfunctioning. Buffy's resilience to give it a go, when innocent people's lives were on the line was incredibly foolish and irresponsible. She responds to Giles saying he'll never be a good man if they don't give him a chance which is just utter rubbish, wether Spike's a good person or not it's irrelevant to wether or not the First can trigger him or not, his goodness doesn't remotely play a part in being able to resist the First's brainwashing capabilities.

I agree completely with all of this. Whatever the writers were implying, I was siding with Giles. He was thinking rationally until he decided to kill Spike with Wood. Killing Spike wasn't the right option. Now chaining him until they cure him from The First's control, that was the right way to go.

[vampmogs]

I agree completely with all of this. Whatever the writers were implying, I was siding with Giles. He was thinking rationally until he decided to kill Spike with Wood. Killing Spike wasn't the right option. Now chaining him until they cure him from The First's control, that was the right way to go.

Agreed. I can understand why he thought he had to kill him but I don't agree it was right. Vampire or not Spike had a soul, to me that's basically as if you were killing a human anyway, what's on the surface is irrelevant, sure he has fangs but like Angel said once about himself, he now as a "human heart."

But no matter how good he was, it's irrelevant really. Wether he was Mother Theresa or the devil, it made no difference in being able to repel the First's brainwashing capabilities. Sometimes I think Buffy was borderline out of character to be *that* foolish. Especially when you take into account she wasn't even doing anything about fixing the problem, let alone be willing to hear people's thoughts on it.

[sueworld]

But what relevance is this to the whole concept of chipping demons?

This was a unique instance with (I believe anyway) a unique demon.

[vampmogs]

This was a unique instance with (I believe anyway) a unique demon.

Still don’t see an argument as to why that’d be the case? He wasn’t particularly unique until he was chipped, what was so different about him before the chip?

I’m sure there’s plenty of vampires out there who could have made it with the chip? James, Elizabeth, Darla, Penn, even Dru.. All very capable individuals who have been in this world a long time. The common sense not to try and do anything to the slayer without the ability to defend themselves wouldn’t be foreign to any of them, nor the realisation they need blood somehow, most likely through Butcher shops. Even Harmony managed to survive as if she had a chip under Angel’s Wolfram and Hart policies. She didn’t kill humans, didn’t drink human blood, really there isn’t anything much different about her circumstances than Spikes. Only that she could actually kill someone if she really wanted to without the pains preventing her from doing so.

Spike actually attempted to take himself out of this world because of the chip. In ‘Doomed’ he would have succeeded if Xander and Willow didn’t break his balance when they entered the room. He’d have impaled himself on the stake and that would be that. It was quite fortunate for him that after the failed attempt he was around long enough to discover he could kill demons which basically sustained his need to kill something. If it hadn’t been for those two he’d have offed himself.

The one I'm interested in is if Angelus had been chipped. He's not the kind of guy who's silly enough to piss off a slayer if he can't defend himself. So I don't believe he'd be foolish enough to employ demons to try and take her out. You do that and you risk her killing the demons and then coming after you, and being unable to defend yourself.. that's a pretty silly position to put yourself in. In 'Fool For Love' we see Angelus usually avoids slayers even when he can defend himself so I don't think he'd be suddenly a fool now.

I think it's very likely Angelus would do what Spike attempted to do, and dust himself. But I find it hard to predict what he'd do.

[sueworld]

Harmony proved time and time again that she couldn't be trusted. Spike did the same of course during his time, but eventually proved (due to his love for the Slayer of course) that he could be trusted enough to use and so turned out to be far more reliable then her.

IMO chipping Angel wouldn't have worked. He's too ridged a character, and would have broken rather then bend to his new situation.

Also as I said before on here I feel he would find a way round 'his little handicap' and end up causing as much damage as if he'd never been chipped.

So no, not the same personality at all and thus a completely different outcome.

[missperoxide]

I definitely agree with you, Sue. Chipped Angelus still could have hurt demons, so he just would have gathered himself a group of vampire minions who would do the killing and torturing for him. And that's the thing I think was special about Spike - he also discovered he could hurt the demons but still he gradually started fighting on Buffy's side. He could have fled Sunnydale (so that the Slayer wouldn't harrass him & his schemes) but for some reason he did not.

As for the chip in general. It is a difficult issue, because in a way chip did trigger Spike's change. But actually I tend to think that he could have fallen in love with Buffy without the chip too, so I think it was mainly love towards her we have to thank the most regarding Spike's change from villain to hero, and not the chip.

Also I really agree with you Sue that it's short step from modifying demons' behavior to modifying the behaviour of humans. So in that sense and generally speaking, actually staking a vampire seems more justified than chipping one.

[Vampire in Rug]

No romantic or sexual relationship would ever develop between Spike and Buffy if Spike had been able to do something horrible like... I don't know... kill Willow in her dorm room. Buffy would never allow herself to love a vampire who killed her best friend and that's exactly what would have happened if not for the chip.

Without the chip, we don't get hero Spike simple as that. I don't think any feelings for Buffy developed until season five, and by that stage he'd been chipped for nearly a year. The chip is an integral part of Spike's redemption story.

[vampmogs]

Harmony proved time and time again that she couldn't be trusted. Spike did the same of course during his time, but eventually proved (due to his love for the Slayer of course) that he could be trusted enough to use and so turned out to be far more reliable then her.

Wether or not Harmony is trust worthy is irrelevant to me. What I was arguing was that Spike isn't particularly unique in being able to adapt to a new situation. Yup, Harmony lapsed but Spike didn't have the luxury of lapsing, he had the chip in his head. As Harmony states to Angel regarding the soul, "she has to try a lot harder." Wether she's trustworthy or not she demonstrated that if a vampire wants to they can change their lifestyle when it's demanded. Spike had the chip which prevented him from lapsing, Harmony didn't.

I definitely agree with you, Sue. Chipped Angelus still could have hurt demons, so he just would have gathered himself a group of vampire minions who would do the killing and torturing for him. And that's the thing I think was special about Spike - he also discovered he could hurt the demons but still he gradually started fighting on Buffy's side. He could have fled Sunnydale (so that the Slayer wouldn't harrass him & his schemes) but for some reason he did not.

Spike *did* work with a demon when he couldn't do the damage himself. He began working with Adam in a plot to kill all of the Scoobies and manipulated them and played them against each other for Adam's plan? When Adam's plan fails Spike jumps in and kills a demon about to attack Willow, Xander and Giles so, as Giles states, they won't stake him for being part of a plot to kill them all. Do you really think Spike would be foolish enough to try this again after being lucky to get out of the first attempt alive?

I don't think you're giving Spike enough credit in the brain department. How many times could he honestly work with someone to try and kill Buffy before she'd dust him? Oddly enough, he was fortunate enough that the demon he did work with, failed. If Adam had successfully killed Buffy or any of the Scoobies do you really think they'd have let him stay alive after learning he'd been working with Adam? Spike was lucky. And he's smart enough to know he got away with it once, better not put himself in that situation again. Any momentary happiness of employing a demon who would succeed in killing any Scooby member would be short term, because Buffy would stake the utterly defenceless Spike on the spot for killing her friends, chip or no chip. He's smart enough not to put himself in that kinda position.

I believe Angelus is as well. He avoided slayers when he could defend himself, and had a good chance at killing one. He wouldn't be silly enough to try and organise minions to try and kill Buffy knowing that if they failed, he'd be risking Buffy coming after him when he's utterly defenceless and unable to stand a chance against her.

[sueworld]

Do you really think Spike would be foolish enough to try this again after being lucky to get out of the first attempt alive?


Why not? I think Angelus would have.

Whether or not Harmony is trust worthy is irrelevant to me.
Isn't to me. Can you honestly say that Harmony would show as much devotion to another as Spike did to both Buffy and Du? If nothing else he was constant, Harmony's motivations were all over the place as demonstrated time and time again.

He wouldn't be silly enough to try and organise minions to try and kill Buffy knowing that if they failed, he'd be risking Buffy coming after him when he's utterly defenseless and unable to stand a chance against her.

You must have been watching a different Angelus then, because the one I watched on the show would have, and being 'silly' would have had nothing to do with it. Cunning would have. If Spike managed to make a deal that once with Adam, think what Angelus would have come up with.

He always was great with twisting other peoples minsdets and could make Spike look like an absolute ametuer in that dept. He would find a way of getting what he needed done whatever the situation alright.

[vampmogs]

Why not? I think Angelus would have.

Because I'm going to give Spike a little more credit? He's managed to stick around for what? 120 plus years? And in that time you don't think he'd have learnt how to take care of himself? He hated the idea of Dru hunting or going on missions with him when she was weakened in season 2, why'd he put himself in harms way again and again when he knows he'd be as good as dead with the chip in his head? It’s why he jumped in and saved the Scoobies in ‘Primeval’ because his instincts already were telling him, “Sh#t Adam failed, they know I helped him, I’m in real trouble here.”

Isn't to me. Can you honestly say that Harmony would show as much devotion to another as Spike did to both Buffy and Du? If nothing else he was constant, Harmony's motivations were all over the place as demonstrated time and time again.

Well I'd say soulless Spike was dangerously fickle when it came to devotion. He spent 120 years with a woman he called his destiny, his black beauty and his love and yet the second he starts pining for someone else, someone he loathed up until only months earlier, he offers to kill Dru just to prove to that person he fancies them now?

But I still don't really see why it plays a part in what I'm personally trying to say here? My argument isn't wether or not Harmony's trustworthy or capable of great devotion, it's wether or not she could adapt to a new lifestyle if *she had no choice.* Wether she's trustworthy or devoted is irrelevant in that case, as it was for Spike. Spike wasn't trustworthy either, shown by how he goes hunting the second he thinks the chip stopped working. *But* he had no choice but to live with his new handicap or die, just like it would be for Harmony, and I think Harmony's proven she is an individual very capable of going with the flow and changing when she needs to. As you say her motivations were all over the place, she’d adapt and become somebody different when the situation called for it. Wether it be her being Spike’s domesticated girlfriend in season five, going to LA to find Cordy, joining and befriending a vampire cult or working at Wolfram and Hart and becoming Angel’s secretary. All the chip would mean is that she has to adapt to that new lifestyle but would be unable to easily move on from it.

You must have been watching a different Angelus then, because the one I watched on the show would have, and being 'silly' would have had nothing to do with it. Cunning would have. If Spike managed to make a deal that once with Adam, think what Angelus would have come up with.

The Angelus I watched told cautionary tales to vampires about the danger of slayers. The Angelus I watched did anything to survive, including offering Darla up to Holtz in 'Hearthrob.' Now granted how obsessed he was of Buffy would mean, like Spike, he'd give it a try having someone do the dirty work for him. But I think common sense and that need to survive would make Angelus, as we've seen before, attempt to get out of harms way rather than continuously and intentionally put himself in front of it.

It's really hard to predict what Angelus would do. Before Spike was chipped I'm sure many people didn't expect his character to end up the way it did either. We've never seen Angelus in a situation where he's utterly defencless and has to change his lifestyle to survive, so we have no real idea as to how he'd deal with it all we can do is guess.

[kana]

I must admit, adaptation isn't the only factor in all this and this is what I argued before. I'm not sure if Sue is saying what I'm saying but my argument is that while the chip was a part of the causal chain that led to Spike's redemption, there were other factors that led to it. I'm arguing that while the chip would prevent a vampire using it's fist and fangs, it's naive to believe that they couldn't cause any damage, especially if they were relentless enough.

This damage is not exclusive to Buffy and the Scoobies either. As it's been said, potentially the vampire could disappear and get their kicks elsewhere causing discord and suffering without causing this pain physically. Spike happened to place a lot of emphasis on the physicality of being a vampire. This is most likely how he instinctually was able to sit on couches etc, when he was incorporeal. If another vamp was a) more psychological and b) had a greater belief in evil as a system than Spike did, then staking may be the safer and more efficient option.

[vampmogs]

I must admit, adaptation isn't the only factor in all this and this is what I argued before. I'm not sure if Sue is saying what I'm saying but my argument is that while the chip was a part of the causal chain that led to Spike's redemption, there were other factors that led to it. I'm arguing that while the chip would prevent a vampire using it's fist and fangs, it's naive to believe that they couldn't cause any damage, especially if they were relentless enough.

This damage is not exclusive to Buffy and the Scoobies either. As it's been said, potentially the vampire could disappear and get their kicks elsewhere causing discord and suffering without causing this pain physically. Spike happened to place a lot of emphasis on the physicality of being a vampire. This is most likely how he instinctually was able to sit on couches etc, when he was incorporeal. If another vamp was a) more psychological and b) had a greater belief in evil as a system than Spike did, then staking may be the safer and more efficient option.

Now you see, I can see where you're coming from with that and I can even agree somewhat with what you're saying. What I believed Sue to be saying is that somehow Spike's devotion or trustworthiness plays a part in his ability to survive with the chip, that's not something I can see.

As Spike says he liked "the crunch" and unlike Angelus, who for sure could be violent, he made a name for himself by ramming railroad Spike's through people's heads. Angelus' name was built on sadistic manipulation and mind games, Spike's reputation was built on brutality and violence. He tries to commit suicide in ‘Doomed’ because he doesn’t believe there’s anything left to live for if he can’t be killing people. Willow says to him “there’s other things you can do besides killing, you’ll adapt” and he scoffs at the idea. But fortunately for Spike, Xander and Willow interrupted his suicide attempt and gave him enough time to discover towards the end of the episode that he could kill, demons. When he finds this out he roars “I’m back and I’m a bloody animal!” at the end of the episode he’s motivated and passionate again, “lets kill something!”

For Spike he took the second best, he made do with killing demons instead of humans, as long as he could kill something it could sustain him.

But it’s different for every vampire. I think whilst violence is what's key for Spike, adaptation is what would be key for someone like Harmony. Who like Spike, doesn't place a great emphasis on evil and who's willing to change and mould herself into every new situation she faces. For someone like Harmony I think having a chip would be a piece of cake for her, I really do. She’d just blow it off “yeah whatever” and just move on and get on with it. Sure, like every vamp she has the bloodlust we saw this in both 'Disharmony' and 'Harms Way' but she lasted for months without human blood, *without* a chip. She could most certainly survive with a chip.

[sueworld]

Because I'm going to give Spike a little more credit?

Nah, I just don't think you're wiling to see these two as two very different personalities, and that there always was a strong desire in Spike to do things 'for love' or the nearest thing dammit for a unsould creature, (as the Judge pointed out) whilst Angelus was totally devoid of such feelings and thus that more dangerous and capable.

Well I'd say soulless Spike was dangerously fickle when it came to devotion. He spent 120 years with a woman he called his destiny,

Exactly. Not really just a few days,eh? :roll: I'd hardly call that fickle even by vamp standards.

I must admit, adaptation isn't the only factor in all this and this is what I argued before. I'm not sure if Sue is saying what I'm saying but my argument is that while the chip was a part of the causal chain that led to Spike's redemption, there were other factors that led to it. I'm arguing that while the chip would prevent a vampire using it's fist and fangs, it's naive to believe that they couldn't cause any damage, especially if they were relentless enough.

This damage is not exclusive to Buffy and the Scoobies either. As it's been said, potentially the vampire could disappear and get their kicks elsewhere causing discord and suffering without causing this pain physically. Spike happened to place a lot of emphasis on the physicality of being a vampire. This is most likely how he instinctually was able to sit on couches etc, when he was incorporeal.

If another vamp was a) more psychological and b) had a greater belief in evil as a system than Spike did, then staking may be the safer and more efficient option.

Yeah, I'd go with that. :lol:

[vampmogs]

Nah, I just don't think you're wiling to see these two as two very different personalities

And yet if you read my post above you'd see my sharing my view as to how they're different? Angelus' name was built on sadistic manipulation and mind games, Spike's reputation was built on brutality and violence. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Exactly. Not really just a few days,eh? :roll: I'd hardly call that fickle even by vamp standards.

What vamp standards would that be exactly? James and Elizabeth standards, "Yeah, two hundred plus years and the girl is still wearing the locket," Darla standards, "Well, isn't it true that some vampires choose a mortal, someone they can sire, someone who, too, can walk those lonely nights, hunting with them, feeding with them, (puts her hand on his) joining with them?" or The Master's standards, "I give it a centaury, tops." You're acting as if Spike and Dru were some kind of anomaly or something? Even a cynic like the Master is willing to give one hundred years to a relationship he doesn’t hold much weight to?

He was with a woman for 120 years, he started liking a new woman for a couple of months and suddenly he's willing to kill the former just to prove he's got a new thang in an episode, non-coincidently titled, 'Crush.'

I’d say in general, vampires are pretty fickle creatures.

[sueworld]

I’d say in general, vampires are pretty fickle creatures.
So in what, in 120 years Spikes been with 3 women. Lordy thats a miles less then your average Joe in the street I'd wager! :roll:

Yeah, real fickle. :lol:

[vampmogs]

So in what, in 120 years Spikes been with 3 women. Lordy thats a miles less then your average Joe in the street I'd wager! :roll:

Yeah, real fickle. :lol:

You know very well what I'm saying. He was with a girl for 120 years who he described as “his destiny” his “black beauty” and the woman who “rescued him from mediocrity.” Throughout the show he repeatedly professed how much he loved her and how much she was the one for him.

Then he’s willing to *kill her* for a girl who he’s had a crush on for a couple of months, a girl who he absolutely hated before that.

Yes I'd say that's dangerously fickle. As would I in saying Darla's very fickle and unpredictable as well, bursting into the rescue Angelus from Holtz in Rome but hitting him on the head with a shovel and leaving him to die in France.

Soulless vampires seem to be very unpredictable.

[sueworld]

Soulless vampires seem to be very unpredictable.

Oh of course, but just like with normal folks some have a more fickle personality then others.

[miscjj06]

Here is a question? How does spike's chip differ from what they did in clockwork orange? Other than the fact that Spike can still kill demons of course? Before finding out that he could kill demons he was about as helpless as the guy in clockwork orange. Please tell me that I'm not the only person who has seen it.

[vampmogs]

Here is a question? How does spike's chip differ from what they did in clockwork orange? Other than the fact that Spike can still kill demons of course? Before finding out that he could kill demons he was about as helpless as the guy in clockwork orange. Please tell me that I'm not the only person who has seen it.

I suspect they got the idea from that book, fantastic book by the way.

In my opinion though, the big difference is that they conditioned a human male in that book, and we have rights in our society. A soulless vampire does not. Which is why it was portrayed as a bad thing when Riley has that chip placed in him but not so when Spike did.

[missperoxide]

Spike *did* work with a demon when he couldn't do the damage himself. He began working with Adam in a plot to kill all of the Scoobies and manipulated them and played them against each other for Adam's plan? When Adam's plan fails Spike jumps in and kills a demon about to attack Willow, Xander and Giles so, as Giles states, they won't stake him for being part of a plot to kill them all. Do you really think Spike would be foolish enough to try this again after being lucky to get out of the first attempt alive?

Yes he did work with Adam. That's why I told Spike gradually started to change. Also that's what Spike for some reason did not do: move out of Sunnydale (so that Slayer wouldn't harrass him), get himself a bunch of vampire minions to do the actual killing act for him. Why didn't he move out of Sunnydale after that scheme with Adam had failed so miserably? Perhaps at some (definitely very unacknowledged) level he had actually started liking being at the side of the good guys? I guess it could be that by the end of S4 he had developed a respect (from one warrior to another) towards Buffy that he did not yet acknowledge to himself?
Or perhaps Spike just stayed to Sunnydale because he couldnt leave, being cast regular and all :roll:

It is obvious that the change from villain to hero took place gradually and the two main things that worked here were the chip and the love towards Buffy. I'm just not sure what to thank more? Was it love that made Spike hero or the chip? Hadn't falling in love happened anyway, with or without the chip? etc etc.

[miscjj06]

In my opinion though, the big difference is that they conditioned a human male in that book, and we have rights in our society. A soulless vampire does not. Which is why it was portrayed as a bad thing when Riley has that chip placed in him but not so when Spike did.

Just becuase the Buffy universe does not give him rights does not stop the chip from being wrong. Terrible things were done to african americans as slaves when they didn't have rights and yet we now, and some did then, see what happened as wrong. In clockwork orange the goverment/police had the right to brainwash a rapist/murderer yet we know by the consequences that what they did to him was wrong. Should letting a vampire starve in Pangs be seen right and merciful? Starvation for a vampire is never ending and very painful where as a stake is quick and painful. I think the quick is more humane. If it wasn't for buffy's mercy, spike would of ended out a bloody walking skeleton. Is that how he should have ended up, until eventually some vamp, demon, inititive, or slayer decided to kill him for fun. Think about it.

[Nina]

To be fair, Spike could also go to the butcher and get himself some blood. Angel did it, ... Spike choose not to go to the butcher to get himself animalblood ... that's his own fault. The chip doesn't mean starvation.

[sueworld]

No, you're quite right there, but for me it's the principal of the thing. I find that those who are capable of creating and applying such a horrible devices such as that often find themselves morally on a very slippery slope indeed.

It's like those who are guilty of showing great cruelty to animals often end up extending that attitude to humans.

I would say that a Slayer and her stake was a better way of dealing with a dangerous creature, rather then trying ways and means to control it through painful stimuli, which may in the long run prove fruitless with other Vampires.

[N2NOther]

Interesting question. I'm all for the GOOD side of it because of the meta reason and that being that Spike became my favourite character because of it. But ethically it may be wrong because they're trying to prevent an animal from it's behavior.

The show went out of it's way to make vampires evil for 4 years and saying how only those with a soul could be good, and then gave you characters like Harmony, who were evil but had free will to choose.

But to me vamps are like sharks, they eat. It's what they do. But because we can talk with vamps (in theory) it makes what they do seem more wrong so it makes "sense" to prevent that nature. I get why someone would do it but there is more to be evil than biting someone.

[cerhat]

The chip was bad because the Initiative was studying vampires with the hopes of controlling them for battle. The 'good' think to do would have been to kill Spike.

[vampmogs]

But to me vamps are like sharks, they eat. It's what they do. But because we can talk with vamps (in theory) it makes what they do seem more wrong so it makes "sense" to prevent that nature. I get why someone would do it but there is more to be evil than biting someone.

But vampires aren't just animals that need to feed, they are inherently *evil.* It goes beyond the simple need to have blood to survive it's in regard to what they enjoy ect. As for example, Spike finding all the dying children in African humorous or grinning when he talks about the vampire Marcus and how he likes to do “nasty things” to children, or Angelus taking great appreciating in the destruction of someone's life. As King said at the beginning of the thread, the vampire Holden talks to Buffy about being immediately connected to evil the moment he awoke from being a vampire.

It’s not as if vampires are just animals who need to feed, and we as humans happen to be what they need to rely on. It goes deeper than that, they’re evil creatures who take pleasure in evil who also happen to feed on humans. They could easily go to a butcher instead, but they don't, because they like killing humans.

[missperoxide]

But the fact that vampires are "inherently *evil*" doesn't mean that it's all right to chip them and use for military purposes, for killing humans, actually.

I might not necessarily think so, but just this thought came to my head that vampires drink human blood although they could survive very well with pigs blood. Humans on the other hand eat animals although they could very well do without. But they just like those pork chops, I'd imagine quite in the same way vampire likes those girls or whoever. As for It goes beyond the simple need to have blood to survive it's in regard to what they enjoy its true - vampires hunt and kill humans not only for food, but also for pleasure. Oh, wait a minute, don't humans do that with animals as well?
Perhaps humans don't have right to be so self-righteous. Perhaps it's only natural that you prey on those weaker and more helpless than you are...
Maybe it's a bit hypocritical that just that animals cant verbalize their complaints (as human could regarding the vampire) we think it's all right to kill and eat them.

[vampmogs]

But the fact that vampires are "inherently *evil*" doesn't mean that it's all right to chip them and use for military purposes, for killing humans, actually.

It means they have no basic rights, hence, Buffy being allowed to dust them whenever she feels like it. It seems pointless to talk about giving them rights and what we should and shouldn't do to them when we're perfectly ok with characters killing them whenever they feel like it. I’ve never heard anyone complain that Holtz or Jasmine had them locked up for training purposes in Ats season three? Is that somehow, inhumane?

In regards to using vampire's for military purposes to kill other humans. That's a whole other can of worms, a very important point you've raised in my opinion, but controversial aswell. All I can say is, we're flawed as a human race. Unfortunately, they will always be wars. In my honest opinion I'd rather see us using soulless vampires in the front lines and letting them die, then letting good men who are fighting for their country die instead. Especially in operations involving the prevention of terroism and things like that, not wars over oil or money or whatever the hell government go into wars about.

Oh, wait a minute, don't humans do that with animals as well?

And isn't that why we have animal rights group like Peta? Isn't that why we have outlawed many hunting sports because of the cruelty? Isn't that why people can be jailed for animal cruelty? Why there's such public backlash against using animals to make items of clothing? The human race has involved, we've come a long way in respecting the rights of animals. Animals who are entirely innocent, animals who aren't, as Holden puts it, "connected to be a powerful all consuming evil who wants to suck the world into a fiery oblivion."

Perhaps humans don't have right to be so self-righteous. Perhaps it's only natural that you prey on those weaker and more helpless than you are...
Maybe it's a bit hypocritical that just that animals cant verbalize their complaints (as human could regarding the vampire) we think it's all right to kill and eat them.

Kill and eat them to sustain ourselves. Spike wasn't eating to survive when he hunted down Nikki Wood and snapped her neck, or when he tortured his victims with railroad Spikes. He did it for pure evil pleasure, as would all vampires. It goes way beyond the simple food chain to something far more sinister. Which is exactly why groups like Peta are designed to make the distinction between killing animals for food and sustenance and killing them out of cruelty.

[sueworld]

Is that somehow, inhumane?

In the context of those stories, no, but then again they weren't a large scale government organisation intent on creating a slave army, were they? They were 'small fry' compared to what the Initiative were after setting up. Plus they were driven by the passion of their quests, not the cold calculating desire to enslave demon kind for their own dodgy purposes.

In my honest opinion I'd rather see us using soulless vampires in the front lines and letting them die, then letting good men who are fighting for their country die instead. Especially in operations involving the prevention of terroism and things like that, not wars over oil or money or whatever the hell government go into wars about.

Given how the Initiative were depicted and what their aims were do you seriously think thats what they would have been ended up being used? I fear it would have been for more morally dubious purposes myself.

"The prevention of terrorism?" Oh give me a break.....:roll: More like talking out anyone that threatened the Initiatives plans more like.

As I keep saying for me it is a moral issue. You have a creature (however evil) and treat in in such a horrible way then you yourself are bringing yourself down to their level, and thus taking another 'nick' out of your own humanity.

Those who treat any creature in such a way are on the slippery slope to treating humans that way too. Something Riley knew all about by the end of that season.

As I said before, in writing terms any idea seen to be originate from the Nazis is shorthand for 'very bad idea'.

[vampmogs]

In the context of those stories, no, but then again they weren't a large scale government organisation intent on creating a slave army, were they? They were 'small fry' compared to what the Initiative were after setting up.

Their size makes a difference? So if Buffy started killing humans it'd be fine, as long as she didn't get some funding? At the end of the day both groups saw no value in a vampire's life and used it to help fight their own private wars. Which is the point I was trying to make, not one which scale they did it. At the end of the day neither group believed vampires’ to have any rights.

Given how the Initiative were depicted and what their aims were do you seriously think thats what they would have been ended up being used? I fear it would have been for more morally dubious purposes myself.

"The prevention of terrorism?" Oh give me a break.....:roll: More like talking out anyone that threatened the Initiatives planes more like it.

The Initinative were a government facility that mostly dealt with science. The government commander in season five more or less tells Riley this, the Initinative care about "what makes demons tick." I suspect if they'd managed to work the chips so the vamps could be reliable uses they wouldn't have much say in how the army of vampires would be used, that's up to the suits. The American government also had government organisations designed to combat demons and stop them from hurting civilians remember, Riley is now a part of one.

Besides the Initinative did care about protecting civilians, they sent out teams during 'Hush' to maintain peace in Sunnydale and had Riley and probably many more going on regular patrols just like Buffy does.

As I keep saying for me it is a moral issue. You have a creature (however evil) and treat in in such a horrible way then you yourself are bringing yourself down to their level, and thus taking another 'nick' out of your own humanity.

Those who treat any creature in such a way are on the slippery slope to treating humans that way too. Something Riley knew all about by the end of that season.

Well the thread is asking wether or not *the chip* was wrong. And I don't believe anyone is acting in a horrible way to place a chip in a vampire's head anymore than I think Buffy acted in a horrible way of being very glad the chip was in his head and very fearful should he ever get it out.

As Is aid before in writing terms any idea that originates form the Nazis is shorthand for 'very bad idea'.

Why are you so interested all of a sudden in keeping with the intentions of the writers? Joss intended on 'Chosen' and Buffy's spell being 'empowering' it was certainly how it was presented and yet you refuse to follow blindly then. Why all of a sudden must we just view something exactly how the show wants us to in this case?

[sueworld]

Why are you so interested all of a sudden in keeping with the intentions of the writers? Joss intended on 'Chosen' and Buffy's spell being 'empowering' it was certainly how it was presented and yet you refuse to follow blindly then. Why all of a sudden must we just view something exactly how the show wants us to in this case?

No not all of a sudden as you well know. :lol: Unlike your good self I'm aways aware that this is a TV show and privy to whims and constraints of a TV show as well as the various 'formats' that writing drama in tales. . The comics follow a different pattern because of the different media that they are in. You telling me that in 'Why We fight' the whole revelation that the Initiative were using an idea/technology that the Nazis started was meant to be seen as a good thing? You do surprise me. :lol:

Joss intended on 'Chosen' and Buffy's spell being 'empowering' it was certainly how it was presented and yet you refuse to follow blindly then.

Because as many others on her have said when you analyze that 'so called empowering spell' it just doesn't work morally. But maybe men have a different attitude towards it as it seemed more women on here had serious issues with the idea then men did.

[vampmogs]

No not all of a sudden as you well know. :lol: Unlike your good self I'm aways aware that this is a TV show and privy to whims and conditions of a TV show as well as the various 'formats' that writing drama in tales. . The comics follow a different pattern because of the different media that they are in. You telling me that in 'Why We fight' the whole revelation that the Initiative were using an idea/technology that the Nazis started was meant to be seen as a good thing? You do surprise me. :lol:

Because as many others on her have said when you analyze that 'so called empowering spell' it just doesn't work morally. But maybe men have a different attitude towards it as it seemed more women on here found fault with the idea then men did.

You can't have it both ways. You can't use the argument "this is how Joss presented the Initinative so we should see it that way" argument because it happens to go along with your own views on that story, but then later disregard how Joss intended for us to view, as for example 'Chosen,' and suddenly act as if it doesn't matter. It doesn't work that way, either you're behind viewing everything as the show intended for it to be viewed or you're not.

I don't care if the Nazi's started this thing or not because quite clearly the reasons the Nazi's were going to use this program was going to be quite different to how the US Government would.. being on completely opposing sides and everything. It's far to easy to view at as black and white and throw "nazi" in there as if it suddenly makes everything so clear, the situation was far more grey than that.

[sueworld]

You can't have it both ways. You can't use the argument "this is how Joss presented the Initinative so we should see it that way" argument because it happens to go along with your own views on that story, but then later disregard how Joss intended for us to view, as for example 'Chosen,' and suddenly act as if it doesn't matter. It doesn't work that way, either you're behind viewing everything as the show intended for it to be viewed or you're not.


Oh don't be silly, of course you can. A viewer can 'cherry pick' if they so choose. It's not like they owe the author anything or need to pass some sort of exam or at the end of it. :roll:

Also I don't think it works comparing the end of Chosen with what the Nazis were getting upto in WWF. It's obvious as to what a viewer is meant to gleam from that situation in that as it was such a simply put plot point. Chosen on the other hand was more complex and didn't involves such fragrantly black and white issues as 'Angel=Good, Nazis=Bad.

I don't care if the Nazi's started this thing or not because quite clearly the reasons the Nazi's were going to use this program was going to be quite different to how the US Government would..

Ya think? Because I don't have such faith I'm afraid as I've explained on here time after time. The Initiative wanted a slave army to use as they saw fit just like the Nazis did. 'Slippery slope' and all that....:s

[vampmogs]

Oh don't be silly, of course you can. A viewer can 'cherry pick' if they so choose. It's not like they owe the author anything or need to pass some sort of exam or at the end of it. :roll:

You can't convincingly debate that because the writers intended for us to view something a certain way we have to, when you know very well if we were discussing 'Chosen' and somebody said the exact same thing to you, you'd say you don't have to view it as empowering because Joss presented it as such. It's contradictory.

Also I don't think it works comparing the end of Chosen with what the Nazis were getting upto in WWF. It's obvious as to what a viewer is meant to gleam from that situation in that as it was such a simply put plot point. Chosen on the other hand was more complex and didn't involves such fragrantly black and white issues as 'Angel=Good, Nazis=Bad.

Ah? To Joss at the time it was a "simply put plot point" you just didn't see it that way. It was never presented as morally ambiguous or two sided in 'Chosen' hence, a lot of people's problem with it. In fact the Initinative were portrayed far more grey than the empowering spell ever was in that episode. Only in season eight is Joss exploring the greyness of Buffy's decision, at the time of 'Chosen' he didn't.

Ya think? Because I don't have such faith I'm afraid as I've explained on here time after time. The Initiative wanted a slave army to use as they saw fit just like the Nazis did. 'Slippery slope' and all that....:s

And "how they saw fit" could be very different to what the Nazi's planned for their slave army.

Think about it. The Initinative is part of the US Government, the same US Government who dropped Riley and his team into the South American jungle to kill Suvalit demons and protect villagers there. Think about the chip- it was designed so Spike couldn’t hurt humans but could hurt demons, coincidence? If they were planning on having this slave army to kill other humans they wouldn’t have tried to implant chips in the vampires *preventing* them from doing so. What they did do is plant chips in their head that allowed them to hurt other *demons.* For all we know they wanted a vampire army so instead of dropping in human men to combat demons they’d drop the vampires in instead.

[sueworld]

You can't convincingly debate that because the writers intended for us to view something a certain way we have to, when you know very well if we were discussing 'Chosen' and somebody said the exact same thing to you, you'd say you don't have to view it as empowering because Joss presented it as such. It's contradictory.


Oh lord, It doesn't work that way. :roll: A viewer can think and crit something how he/she sees fit I'm afraid. Ther'es no hard and fast rules on that score.

In fact the Initinative were portrayed far more grey than the empowering spell ever was in that episode. Only in season eight is Joss exploring the greyness of Buffy's decision, at the time of 'Chosen' he didn't.

Grey? They weren't grey.

This from the organization that were seen to chip Riley and torture Oz and threatened Buffy's life and the Scoobies in general. They weren't grey by any standards.

What they did do is plant chips in their head that allowed them to hurt other *demons.* For all we know they wanted a vampire army so instead of dropping in human men to combat demons they’d drop the vampires in instead.

For a start they wanted a vampire slave army for a start, which even with Vampires is a morally 'dodgy' concept at best, plus no, I personally don't think thats what they were after given the nature of what we'd seen of their dubious moral practices and attitude to others during that season.

[vampmogs]

Grey? They weren't grey.

This from the organization that were seen to chip Riley and torture Oz and threatened Buffy's life and the Scoobies in general. They weren't grey by any standards.

Do you actually have any textual evidence or any on screen evidence to prove that *The Initinative* threatened Buffy or the Scoobies life.. Other than “because I say so?”

We do have textual evidence that it was Maggie who wanted Buffy dead and not the Initinative;

Buffy: Riley, he can tell us what we need to know. Maggie wanted me dead, didn't she?
Engleman: She did. He looks at Riley Engleman: But understand the Initiative has no interest in eliminating the slayer. He looks back at Buffy.
Engleman: It was her own vendetta.

We also have on screen evidence showing that *The Initinative* didn’t even attempt to arrest Buffy into ‘Primeval.’ Even after she broke into their government base *twice* assaulted at least one troop and threatened to kill at least one high ranking officer. There’s no evidence whatsoever that they ever intended to kill her or threaten her when they didn’t even bother to arrest her.

You keep saying that this government agency threatened Buffy or wanted Buffy dead, but where’s the proof? Buffy came out of hiding the second Maggie was dead.. Why? Because it was Maggie who wanted her dead not the organisation.

If they're so evil you should have plenty of ammo from the show to back you up on that but you're making claims without any on-screen or textual support?

The grey is that the organisation were also fighting Adam, that the organisation sent their troops on patrol to battle demons, that the organisation sent troops out onto the streets to maintain peace during 'Hush.' Typically, guys portrayed as nothing more than evil don't go around doing stuff like that.

For a start they wanted a vampire slave army for a start, which even with Vampires is morally 'dodgy' concept to say the least, plus no, I personally don't think thats what they were after given the nature of what we'd seen of their dubious moral practices and attitude to others during that season.

Again, where's the evidence? We have evidence their chips prevented these vampires from hurting humans. We have evidence their chips allowed vampires to hurt demons. That's all we got, basing reasonable opinions from there indicates they would not use vampires under their control to harm humans. Anything else is just elaborate th