On 08/23/09 22:46, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> Sure there was. The documentary scenes in the beginning suggested
>> terrorist attacks (derailed train was one of them, I think).
>
> I interpreted those as being stuff blamed on the aliens that the aliens
> didn't do. Maybe I'm just more cynical.

	Oh sure. The whole documentary scenes have multiple interpretations. 
That's one of them. Another is that they were simply responding to poor 
treatment. Another is that they did this unprovoked. All interpretations 
lead to different ethics. Given that, I had to suspend judgment.

>> And even if I grant your point, so what? There wasn't any support for
>> the aliens actually being harmless either.
>
> You're interpreting it from the point of view of "what if this was
> real?" I'm interpreting it from the point of view of "this is a
> hollywood movie, so what would the fictional portrayal include if ....?"

	Which is why I said that it sucks from a true SF perspective (or I 
think I said it here - maybe elsewhere). Hollywood rarely makes a good 
SF movie, from a SF reader's perspective.

	Otherwise, sure. A good action movie with good acting. ;-)

>> Why is killing the alien babies (who were all illegal, BTW) wrong?
>
> Generally, killing babies is frowned upon, even for domestic non-food
> non-humans.

	Not if they're potential pests. Heck, in places like Wyoming, people 
justifiably kill coyotes - including the cubs (or whatever you call 
them). Coyotes are on the rise, and are one of the few large animals 
that are thriving with the human population. They end up attacking too 
many animals on farms.

-- 
How do frogs die? Ker-mit suicide.

Post a reply to this message