How do Reavers pilot ships, them being insane cannibals and such?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, December 2, 2021 20:06
VIEWED: 48258
PAGE 10 of 19
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
You made up the idea that they are mindless killing machines
NO the FILM made up that idea.
Where? When? When did it even imply that they are mindless?
Quote:
The only time their mental reasoning is mentioned in both the series and the film is too say they have none.
Once again, when and were? I remember that they had no philosophy, I remember that they said they forgot how to be men, I don’t remember anything calling them mindless, or stupid, or anything along those lines.
Also recall that you are refuting the logic of the origin, so even if they do it only effects the argument if it is directly related to the PAX.
Quote:I am well aware of that assertion, as I am aware of your assertion that the PAX explanation implies that do not. On the other hand I have not read a single explanation for why. Each time you have jumped from the PAX explanation to mindless killing machines without a middle step.
My assertion is that they do, but that the PAX doesn't allow for their emergent behaviours. Read my posts. I quite clearly say my only problem with the Reavers is that the PAX is an insufficient explanation.
Quote:
Right, so people who's aggression has been pushed beyond madness would be able to act in a cooperative manner?
Some always have and they probably always will.
The best example of teamwork I have ever seen was flipping over a bus in the middle of a very violent, very angry, mob. It was the quickest and most efficient example of group organization I have ever seen. I wish I could adequately describe it, but you just had to see how they worked together to set up makeshift levers, position fulcrums, distribute manpower, and then flip the bus more quickly than seemed possible.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I really want to know what world you are living in, because it is not the one I’m in.
Do you really want to start trading insults?
Quote:
Ok, first thing:
Aggression does not equal anger.
No, but anger and aggression go pretty much hand in hand. I'd go as far as saying it's not really possible to have one without the other.
Quote:
Rational decision making is often hindered by anger, but rational problem solving isn’t hindered nearly as much. I’m afraid I can’t give an example because I don’t know which type of problem solving you mean. I can tell you that in areas from calculus to navigation to skiing to laptop troubleshooting anger aren’t much of a hindrance.
So you've been that angry all you want to do is kill the object of your aggression and you've had no hindrance to you rationality huh?
Quote:
And yet the majority of people who do do not get into accidents.
Okay, you might be right; we are living in different worlds. Yours would be fantasy if you truly believe that.
Quote:
Nothing about that implies a lack of the skills you claim they lack.
That's because you’re taking my comment out of context and trying to imply its meaning to a different aspect of the discussion.
Further more I'm not claiming they lack these skills. I'm claiming that the explanation for their origins would preclude their ability to use them.
Quote:
Where? When? When did it even imply that they are mindless? It says that they don't have a philosophy...
Once again, when and were? I remember that they had no philosophy, I remember that they said they forgot how to be men, I don’t remember anything calling them mindless, or stupid, or anything along those lines.
I was maybe overzealous when including the series there. As I said, the series explanation I have no (real) problem with.
As for the Film it goes beyond "they have no philosophy" and the scientist hologram certainly implies, if not actually says (but I'm tired, and it's been awhile since I've seen the film) that the Reavers were mindless.
Quote:
Also recall that you are refuting the logic of the origin, so even if they do it only effects the argument if it is directly related to the PAX.
You were the one bringing in other elements. If you wish for me to keep focused on this specific point please do so yourself.
Quote:
I am well aware of that assertion, as I am aware of your assertion that the PAX explanation implies that do not. On the other hand I have not read a single explanation for why. Each time you have jumped from the PAX explanation to mindless killing machines without a middle step.
Then why were you debating a completely different point entirely? And I have given my reasoning. I have yet to see you give a reason beyond, Joss said PAX did it, and Reavers fly ships, therefore no plot hole.
Quote:
Some always have and they probably always will.
The best example of teamwork I have ever seen was flipping over a bus in the middle of a very violent, very angry, mob. It was the quickest and most efficient example of group organization I have ever seen. I wish I could adequately describe it, but you just had to see how they worked together to set up makeshift levers, position fulcrums, distribute manpower, and then flip the bus more quickly than seemed possible.
Was this before, during or after the Killing, raping and cannibalism? I ask because if those factors weren't present these people were not showing aggression or anger to the extremes of the Reavers. Therefore your analogy doesn't quite work.
Beyond that I seriously have my doubts that your mob, given the fact they aren’t at the extremes of the Reavers, would be capable of operating and maintaining a spacecraft.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First post (been lurking for a while though).
I think it's an issue of dramatic symmetry. The natural corollary for people who wind down to apathy would be people with liberated libidos. There can be no doubt that those with absolutely no impulse control don't co-operate, don't gell with societies, and don't pilot spaceships.
However, we're presented with the incontrevertible evidence that Reavers do co-operate, do have a society (of sorts), and do pilot ships. As said above the origin of the Reavers is presented in brief by someone who was about to die at their hands (encouraging a bit of hyperbole) and who is vague on behavioural specifics anyhow. There's still plenty of room to explain away their necessary intelligence and/or ability to co-operate, as shown by the heaps of posts ready to do so.
Thus intelligent reavers kind of fail on a dramatic level, but they can still be consistent on a strictly plot basis. They seem less like a plot hole than an imperfection in the artifice.
Hope this doesn't get lost in the incipient flame war...
__________________________________________________
Fist of tallow, tongue of ash.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks eyetooth, that was getting a little too heated for a moment there.
Essentially your making the same point as I was, albeit from a slightly different perspective.
Quote:
Originally posted by eyetooth:
The natural corollary for people who wind down to apathy would be people with liberated libidos. There can be no doubt that those with absolutely no impulse control don't co-operate, don't gell with societies, and don't pilot spaceships.
Exactly!
Quote:
However, we're presented with the incontrevertible evidence that Reavers do co-operate, do have a society (of sorts), and do pilot ships. As said above the origin of the Reavers is presented in brief by someone who was about to die at their hands (encouraging a bit of hyperbole) and who is vague on behavioural specifics anyhow. There's still plenty of room to explain away their necessary intelligence and/or ability to co-operate, as shown by the heaps of posts ready to do so.
But in order to do so you have to disregard canon evidence (which includes the scientists statements, which are at least as valid as fan conjecture, and possibly more so), hence my assertion of a plot hole.
But thanks for a well reasoned and thoughtful post.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll jump once more into the fray...
Citizen, here is your argument, as I understand it:
1. IF the Reavers were created by PAX, a chemical that affects their chemistry increasing their rage/aggression/etc. to hyper levels, then they would not be able to pilot ships (have a society, etc.).
2. We see them pilot ships in the show and movie.
3. Therefore, the PAX is an inadequate explanation for the Reavers behaviors that we actually see.
4. This is a plot hole (either a fault in the explanation of their origin or in their behavior, but the two are incompatible).
Do I have your argument correct?
If so, my argument with your argument is with the very first statement. How do we know that being infected/affected by the PAX chemical makes these higher-brain-function activities possible?
There is CERTAINLY no statement to that effect in the show/movie. All of the statements, basically, talk about how inhumanly aggressive they are. The only statements attributing that to the PAX are those by the researcher on the film. She doesn't make any poitn about their intelligence or lack thereof.
I could see why you would want to make that leap. It certainly seems plausible. It even seems logical to think that people driven beyond madness would usually be incapable of performing higher-order tasks.
But, it's not IMPOSSIBLE that they could, and, as we clearly have evidence in the show and movie, they can. If it weren't for the specific evidence to the contrary in the show/film, your assumption would be the logical one.
"Once you have ruled out the impossible, whatever you have left, however improbable, must be the truth." (Or whatever it was that Sherlock Holmes said that means basically that.)
(It is, of course, not IMPOSSIBLE that Joss just screwed up, but for the internal logic of the series, it is. Therefore, if there is any explanation, however improbable, short of "Joss screwed up," then that's the logically correct one. If, of course, too many highly improbable events occur, that's a sign of bad storytelling, but I don't really think that this one instance, based as it is on an assumption about the effects of a fictional chemical, rises to that level.)
I think that, despite your preference for the psychological.sociological explanation on the show (stared into the nothingness of space...), you are actually imagining the PAX explanation as somehow more powerful and determinative than it needs to be. There is nothing that says that just because it is a chemical rather than sociological explanation it must therefore be all-or-nothing as you seem to believe. As a few people have pointed out, it's quite possible that the Reavers can be "sated" or that they have lucid moments or that their logical thinking isn't impaired by their aggressivity.
Personally, from a poetic/literary perspective, I prefer the show's explanation more; the nothingness of space is a powerful idea. What I like about the PAX explanation is that by attributing the Reavers to the effects of the Alliance's plans, it suggests that human beings are to blame for the terror that they are so eager to suggest is entirely alien to them. The vast nothingness of space is easy to blame. It's a bit harder if you have to take responsibility for the horrible aggressivity that lies within people.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Sep7imus:
Citizen, here is your argument, as I understand it:
1. IF the Reavers were created by PAX, a chemical that affects their chemistry increasing their rage/aggression/etc. to hyper levels, then they would not be able to pilot ships (have a society, etc.).
2. We see them pilot ships in the show and movie.
3. Therefore, the PAX is an inadequate explanation for the Reavers behaviors that we actually see.
4. This is a plot hole (either a fault in the explanation of their origin or in their behavior, but the two are incompatible).
Do I have your argument correct?
That is, essentially, it yep.
Quote:
If so, my argument with your argument is with the very first statement. How do we know that being infected/affected by the PAX chemical makes these higher-brain-function activities possible?
There is CERTAINLY no statement to that effect in the show/movie. All of the statements, basically, talk about how inhumanly aggressive they are. The only statements attributing that to the PAX are those by the researcher on the film. She doesn't make any poitn about their intelligence or lack thereof.
I'm assuming you meant impossible, so I'll debate that point.
The only reference for the PAX effects is to say that in most cases it put people in such a state of apathy that they just stopped breathing, moving, eating etc...
Essentially they just stopped. The opposite effect of that would be aggression beyond reason. The ONLY way Reavers could work a society, given the extreme levels of aggression and loss of impulse control suggested by the film (based on the observed effects of the PAX and what the only character with any knowledge on the subject has to say on it), is if they could be sated in someway.
However the idea that they could be sated is not canon, and therefore is merely fan conjecture.
In a similar vein I could just as easily make the argument that the Reavers have nothing to do with the PAX what so ever, and all data to the contrary is a conspiracy (Chrisisall will like that one...) designed to discredit the Alliance. That all the recordings were planted by anti Alliance groups who ended up using our BDH's as an unwitting pawn in their mission to take control of the galaxy.
Basically I'm saying that in order to mesh the two known facts (PAX as origin, Reaver society/abilities) requires us to either assume canon evidence is exaggerated, or too ignore it completely, and come up with essentially baseless explanations to fill in the gaps left by the loss of this canon evidence.
Quote:
The vast nothingness of space is easy to blame. It's a bit harder if you have to take responsibility for the horrible aggressivity that lies within people.
I see it in a very different way. The chemicals did it has been a mainstay of Zombie movies for years. It's been in Sci-Fi for sometime also. It's actually quite cliché, and, IMHO not a particularly good one. The nothingness of space has never really been done before.
Moreover I'd say that the PAX is a much more comfortable explanation for us. It means I could never do those terrible things the Reavers do, because I haven't been exposed to the PAX. If I was exposed to the PAX I would not be responsible for my actions, it would be the fault of the PAX and by extension whoever infected me with it. The nothingness of space explanation obviously implies that anyone could become a Reaver, given the right circumstances. That Reavers are people pushed over the edge, so too speak, not just the product of a chemical agent...
That we all have a little Reaver in all of us...
I went to a screening where Joss was actually present for a Q/A afterwards. I did have a question that’s a little aside (though unfortunately I didn’t get to ask it). The whole ‘erosion’ of Alliance power suggests (to me) that Joss is setting up the future possibility of a second War of Independence (which I’d also like to see on screen). In which case the
Reavers’ being the result of the PAX is a nice way of tying togeth
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
I really want to know what world you are living in, because it is not the one I’m in.
Do you really want to start trading insults?
Actually it’s not an insult. It’s a simple recognition that even though we live on the same planet we can live in very different worlds. The way one sees things, interprets those things, and indeed the basic axioms one takes as irrefutable fact differ from person to person and place to place.
Quote:
No, but anger and aggression go pretty much hand in hand. I'd go as far as saying it's not really possible to have one without the other.
This is what I mean about different perceptions of reality. I have seen a lot of cases in which very angry people are totally non-aggressive, and perfectly calm people are very aggressive. It all depends on the motive, if the aggression is without motive I see no connection to anger.
I do not see anger as related to the issue as it is separate from aggression, and as such only respond to it because I believe that your conclusions on that are also incorrect and you seem hell-bent on including it. Anger will be covered at the end.
Quote:
Further more I'm not claiming they lack these skills. I'm claiming that the explanation for their origins would preclude their ability to use them.
Why? How would highly increased aggression preclude their ability to use the skills?
Quote:
As for the Film it goes beyond "they have no philosophy" and the scientist hologram certainly implies, if not actually says (but I'm tired, and it's been awhile since I've seen the film) that the Reavers were mindless.
Well when you are not tired please tell me how you came to the conclusion she implied it. I saw nothing of the sort.
Quote:
I have yet to see you give a reason beyond, Joss said PAX did it, and Reavers fly ships, therefore no plot hole.
Please do not confuse me with others. What I have said has nothing to do with Joss. It actually does not even have to do with them flying ships. It is only about you assertions. What I have said would apply just as well if there were a situation totally unrelated to Firefly, Serenity, and Joss in which we were only given the explanation of the PAX.
I would still maintain that those effected as the Reavers were would have the ability to operate and maintain space ships if they had the prior knowledge and ability or the resources to learn the necessary skills. Of course I probably wouldn’t think to mention space ships in that situation.
My reasoning is simple, and it is in two parts:
1 The points that you have used to argue for a plot hole are not based on the movie but your own misconceptions about both the effect of anger and the relationship anger has to aggression.
2 As there is nothing that indicates a plot hole it is unnecessary to invent one.
Quote:
You were the one bringing in other elements. If you wish for me to keep focused on this specific point please do so yourself.
I am not bringing in other elements. There is one specific monologue related to their origin, and you have yet to produce something from that monologue to support your claim that the origin “precludes their ability to use” the skills you claim it does.
All I have done was respond to what was said in the monologue, and what you have said.
Personally I think you are brining new elements in by asserting that anger is necessary without reasoning behind it. Soldiers routinely kill people who they are not angry at, which is pretty damn aggressive. There have been cases of torture in which there was no anger involved.
There are many cases of rape where the attacker is not angry at the victim.
I eat a hell of a lot of meat and I am not remotely angry at that which I ingest. In cultures including cannibalism the cannibals are seldom angry at their food. In some recorded cases of cannibalism the ones eating loved the ones they ate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The only reference for the PAX effects is to say that in most cases it put people in such a state of apathy that they just stopped breathing, moving, eating etc...
Essentially they just stopped. The opposite effect of that would be aggression beyond reason.
That is a leap of faith. There isn't any evidence for it in real life or the fiction involved.
Aggression does not have the relationship to reason you seem to think it does. Aggressive people can have unhindered reason, hyper-aggressive people can also have unhindered reason, so if elevation of aggression does not lessen reason why would the ultimate elevation do that?
(Also we don't know that it is the ultimate elevation, it would not take total apathy to make someone lay down and die. They didn’t need to stop caring but only to care so little that they would didn’t see the point in working to keep living.)
Reavers are the opposite of apathetic, as both you and the movie say. That means that they care about things, they seek pleasure, they are willing to take risks, they have high enthusiasm, they desire involvement, and they have high motivation. (The inverse of each aspect of apathy.) They have and care about the goal of seeking pleasure and involvement, enthusiasm for that goal, they are highly motivated to achieve the goal and are willing to take risks to attain it. This, of course, results in hyper-agression.
There is nothing about reason there, you have simply added that.
This supports what is seen of Reavers:
Obviously their involvement takes the form of control (which is the ultimate form of involvement), control over life and death, the ability to do things to people that those people do not want done (raping them for example) and to place themselves in a spot traditionally regarded as one of control: the top of the food chain. They also seem to get pleasure from these things, which makes sense considering the desire for such involvement, and thus they go about attaining it.
The origin, as I understand it, implies that they will do whatever it takes to get this pleasure (supporting what is said about them in the show and movie), which in turn implies that they will cooperate and be rational if that will help (again supporting, not contradicting, what is said in the show and movie.)
Quote:
The nothingness of space has never really been done before.
Once again this is an example of us living in different words. Damned if I haven’t seen that a lot. From The Twilight Zone to sections of Star Trek Voyager, the effects of the nothingness of space has been done. I really can not think of two things further apart in sci-fi than Star Trek and The Twilight Zone.
The nothingness of space is also comparable to the nothingness apparent on the sea when unable to find land, or fish, or any other living thing. That has caused rational murdering cannibals in the past. (I think it has in fact caused rational raping murdering cannibals, but I am not totally sure about the rape.) And as such is not exactly new.
Further there is a problem with the Reavers going insane because of the nothingness of space, as Jayne says, “Just looked like … more space.” Everyone in the Firefly solar system has to deal with that same nothingness because as we know, from being here on Earth, planets don’t look like something filling up space, they just look like bigger stars, and the “edge of space” in Firefly and Serenity is full of stars.
I also like the idea of Reavers being created by being in space too long. I wonder what would become of people after they had killed their friends to avoid suffocation and eaten their families to avoid starvation, something that could well happen on a space ship if it had problems. What would they be like when they finally got back to civilization? What would they do after they repaired their ship?
But just because I like it doesn’t mean I have to argue that the explanation given is incorrect, it makes sense and is consistent with what we know, even if it is sligh
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You folks have long since lost me on this thread. Oh I know we're off on multiple tangents debating the cannibal psychology of reavers, and beyond 60 or 70 posts this thread becomes the domain of the pure "core" of fans, but...
Ridiculous. Ridiculosity. Followed by.. ridicule...
It was a simple and fair question from a thinking mind... if reavers are rabid raping flesheaters, how is it they can possess the aptitude to fly and navigate a spaceship. Aren't they simple mindless zombies like in all the "hollywood" movies? I mean, c'mon already. Nobody rapes, murders, and then devours their victims unless they are zombies. Well.. never mind all that stuff in the history books about primitive "savages" who were cannibals. Silly nonsense.
There is also the leap from an episode of FF where Mal prophesizes the reaver-ization of a survivor from a reaverized ship. With almost psychic intuition he fortells of this person becoming psychotically driven to murder and self-mutilation (followed by the amateur attempt at surgery by said survivor on them die-by-the-dozen silly bits of villian fodder, those Alliance troops). Someone suggested "Stockholm Syndrome" which worked for me, but nooooo. Newp newp newp.
Let's torture this logic to the point of being absurd beyond all recognition. Let's go off on tangents where River is a reaver, etc. I won't even recount the laundry list of silliness I've read in this thread. It goes on and on. Absurd.
I guess I'm a "troll". How dare I impose a seemingly obvious (yet detached) critical view of this whole debate.
For crying out loud.
XG
No such thing as gravity. The "Earth-that-was" just sucks.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Actually it’s not an insult. It’s a simple recognition that even though we live on the same planet we can live in very different worlds. The way one sees things, interprets those things, and indeed the basic axioms one takes as irrefutable fact differ from person to person and place to place.
Then I misunderstood. That line is usually used as an insult.
Quote:
This is what I mean about different perceptions of reality. I have seen a lot of cases in which very angry people are totally non-aggressive, and perfectly calm people are very aggressive. It all depends on the motive, if the aggression is without motive I see no connection to anger.
I do not see anger as related to the issue as it is separate from aggression, and as such only respond to it because I believe that your conclusions on that are also incorrect and you seem hell-bent on including it. Anger will be covered at the end.
Are you a psychologist? No really I mean you say cases so I'm merely wondering. Otherwise it's entirely possible you don't understand exactly what Aggression is. To clarify:
http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap7/
A psychology website. It uses the terms Aggression and Anger interchangeably.
Quote:
Anger, aggression ... are intertwined in many ways
http://www.dualdiagnosis.org/index.php?id=7&pid=8
Quote:
Anger can be expressed in the form of ... aggression, and violence.
http://www.siu.edu/offices/counsel/anger.htm
Aggression (of the type we're talking about) is the outward manifestation of Anger.
Just because you don't see Anger as a related issue doesn't make it so. So you have no basis to tell me to leave it out of the argument.
Quote:
Soldiers routinely kill people who they are not angry at, which is pretty damn aggressive. There have been cases of torture in which there was no anger involved.
Have you ever tortured anyone or been a soldier? What cases of torture?
I'd actually say the soldier is angry, but that anger is channelled and controlled. Anger is widely accepted as a natural response to physical threat.
Quote:
Anger is usually a central feature of a survivor's response to trauma because it is a core component of the survival response in humans.
http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/facts/specific/fs_anger.html
Quote:
There are many cases of rape where the attacker is not angry at the victim.
I've never heard of a rape case where the attacker was not angry at something. You don't have to be angry at the object of your aggression to be angry. Rapists are nearly always angry at the world or themselves. They are seldom angry at the victim.
Quote:
I eat a hell of a lot of meat and I am not remotely angry at that which I ingest.
Since when has merely eating a dead piece of meat even been considered aggressive?
Quote:
In cultures including cannibalism the cannibals are seldom angry at their food. In some recorded cases of cannibalism the ones eating loved the ones they ate.
It's not the cannibalism; it's the fact that the 'prey' is eaten alive. None of your examples indicate cannibals that eat live prey.
Quote:
Why? How would highly increased aggression preclude their ability to use the skills?
Firstly you require proof of me that it does, but do not require proof of your self that it doesn't.
But:
Quote:
Aggression destroys relationships. People believe that in order to survive, they must combat the opposition. Fear and anger destroy hope for healthy communities, workgroups, families, and organizations. Relationships fracture, distrust increases, people retreat into self-defence and isolation, paranoia becomes commonplace.
Quote:
Uncontrolled anger can trigger a large number of anti-social behaviours
http://topcondition.com/images/mymindfield/anger_management.htm
Quote:
anger encourage impulsive reactions, irrational behaviour, poorly thought-out decisions
http://www.wilderness-survival.net/mind-2.php
And before you say "b
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME