LOL, well...(r) -- La Femme Nikita Fan Fiction Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Monday, January 30, 08:38:45pm
Author: JayBee
Subject: LOL, well...(r)
In reply to: Nell 's message, "It is an interesting question, isn't it?" on Monday, January 30, 07:59:54pm

I'm still not sure I quite got at what I intended in the adultery thread,

Oops.

which wasn't so much a question of 'adultery' as a legal issue - which is obviously null in all of their cases, one way or another, but more an issue of the value of personal fidelty - Section consciously creates itself as an environment in which it is impossible to honor your own promises, or expect anyone else to honor theirs.

The stumbling block I had with the question you posed had nothing to do with legal definitions, but my sense that you were focusing on an oddly narrow (to me) realm of personal fidelity: that is, sexual fidelity *only*. In a context where people lied to and betrayed others on such a massive scale, it seemed to me you were giving a disproportionate importance to one, fairly trivial (IMO) aspect of that larger betrayal. So I honestly didn't understand why the issue seemed to carry such weight for you.

So, if you are not guilty of infidelity and bear no real personal resposibility with regard to it, because you act under compulsion, can you be responsible for positive things either?

In my opinion, no. Not unless you do something that "goes beyond the call of duty," to employ a cliche. But that's where your point about "space for independent action" comes in -- to the degree that the characters operated in that space, they could be heroic. (Or not, as the case may be.)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: LOL, well...(r) -- Nell, Tuesday, January 31, 08:08:26am
- Ah! (r) -- JayBee, Tuesday, January 31, 11:39:10am
  - Phoey -- Nell, Tuesday, January 31, 05:51:03pm
    - I understand your metaphor, now that (r) -- JayBee, Tuesday, January 31, 07:13:06pm
      - Actually, I was also thinking of Paul's relationship (r) -- Nell, Wednesday, February 01, 06:58:26am
      - I think the reason that I was interested in this (r) -- Nell, Wednesday, February 01, 09:13:49am
        Hmm. Well. OK. (r) -- JayBee, Wednesday, February 01, 09:50:25pm
        Drifting back - -- Nell, Saturday, February 11, 09:01:43am
        Re: Drifting back - -- JayBee, Saturday, February 11, 03:01:02pm
        Specifics re Paul (r) -- JayBee, Wednesday, February 01, 10:29:39pm
        Re: Specifics re Paul (r) -- Nell, Saturday, February 11, 09:10:54am
        I might come back and elaborate on this (r) -- JayBee, Saturday, February 11, 03:07:54pm