- This topic has 57 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Ursula only ate the animals. She talks about eating caviar before it hatched and shellfish. If she is evil for eating animals then are we?
I’ve never seen the Broadway play, and you said she was eating her subjects, so I assumed you meant merfolk. But you also state that she was using dark magics. What for? Was it to impede the natural rights of her subjects?
The witch had only taken over the Winkie country. Other than that was she really “that” evil?? Glinda and Tattypoo fought her off before, giving her the shoes wouldn’t give her THAT much power sense the witch of the east wasn’t doing much. If she got out of hand, cast a rain spell. Either way, giving the witch her shoes would be giving a pair shoes to a mourning sister in my opinion. There was no reason to deny her them.
But now you’re saying that there are various levels of evil. Who decides that? Why do the people of the Winkie country have to suffer an injustice like being ruled over? Again, moral rights.
True and it was his intention to be locked up but he still had the contract. Rumple has operated baby deals before (James went to George in order to save the Charming farm) Who’s to say Rumple wouldn’t have found some loving parents for Cinderella’s baby.
Cinderella made her original deal with Rumple in haste. She didn’t bother to read anyhting. She was so desperate (oh hey. it’s like that is one of the major themes of the show) to get out of her living situation that she made a deal she didn’t fully understand. Does that mean it shouldn’t be honored though?
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"RumplesGirl wrote: Think about John Locke and his “Second Treatise” and the idea of the social contract. There Locke spells out that government gets its right to rule from the goverened and that it cannot infringe on the natural rights of its citizens. (If someone has a better explanation, give it cause The Enlightenment is about 1600 years AFTER my area of expertise). I would say being eaten takes away my natural right to live.
The idea of a social contract is pretty much as you describe. A government agrees to protect the human rights of its citizens while those citizens abide by the country’s laws. So every citizen has certain rights (e.g. the Bill of Rights), that same citizen cannot go around infringing on the rights of others (e.g. it is illegal to kill another citizen unless in self defense). So, citizens give up certain liberties (like not having to pay taxes), but in exchange are guaranteed to have certain rights protected. If, however, the government fails to protect the agreed upon rights, or if its laws infringe upon those rights already established in the written constitution, then the people have the right to dissolve that government (leave the social contract) in favor of a new one.
Thanks. I thought I knew what I was talking about. Good to know I haven’t totally forgotten “modern” European history, try as I might.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"When Regina was captured by Snowing, did they give her a “fair” trial? No. Did she have access to legal representation? No. Snowing infringed on Regina’s rights, Regina infringed repeatedly on Snow’s “right to live”.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixIs there any character on Once that has not infringed on another character’s rights in some way?
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixWhen Regina was captured by Snowing, did they give her a “fair” trial? No. Did she have access to legal representation? No. Snowing infringed on Regina’s rights, Regina infringed repeatedly on Snow’s “right to live”.
An excellent point. Even the high ranking Nazi officials got Nuremberg. Regina should have been tried as a war criminal BUT FTL isn’t exactly “modern.” We don’t know what sort of legal system they have. Do they have laws such as the right to a fair trial in the presence of your peers? It seems that it was down to Snowing and their closet allies, all of whom differed on just what to do with Regina. I think we have to remember that several of those laws we now take for granted are actually “new” in the history of the world. Innocent before proven guilty, a right to legal representation. These are things we have in Britain or America (and other places) but FTL seems to be of a different time period.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"True and it was his intention to be locked up but he still had the contract. Rumple has operated baby deals before (James went to George in order to save the Charming farm) Who’s to say Rumple wouldn’t have found some loving parents for Cinderella’s baby.
Cinderella made her original deal with Rumple in haste. She didn’t bother to read anyhting. She was so desperate (oh hey. it’s like that is one of the major themes of the show) to get out of her living situation that she made a deal she didn’t fully understand. Does that mean it shouldn’t be honored though?
Rumple had it in writing that Cinderella had agreed to give him her first born in exchange for her going to the ball. Cinderella should’ve read the contract. If the contract CLEARLY stated that her first born was the method of payment then Cinderella wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on. However, if the contract did not specify the first born was the method of payment, and since Rumple didn’t say the first born was the method of payment until after the fact, the Cinderella would’ve been able to appeal against the contract.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixIs there any character on Once that has not infringed on another character’s rights in some way?
Well which “rights?” Because we don’t know a whole lot about the legal system of the Enchanted Forest like I said above. Are we talking moral and natural rights?
Snowing–they did not offer Regina a fair trial but again that’s a legal right that might not be apart of the FTL code of laws. And Snow did stay the execution and then give Regina another shot.
Regina–has killed countless of people. That’s a natural infringment.
Rumple–same as Regina. He has also manipulated the heck out of people, persuading them to do something they may not have done if the idea was not in their head.
Emma–Hmm. We could argue that in S1 she kept trying to step on Regina’s right to raise Henry who was hers through years of child caring, becuase that adoption wasn’t even close to legal, obviously.
Hook–he’s taken hearts and assulted people.
Belle–she might be our best bet in answering this question.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Or eat It like in the original. But Rumpel wasn’t wrong if he had a legal contract. Who knows what he wanted with it. Maybe if she read the contract she would know. Maybe he planned on giving it away to a couple in exchange for something
I think Charming’s words are appropriate here when Rumple said in 2×4 that he doesn’t lie. There is a difference between literal truth and honesty of the heart.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA0BRpozdls
Rumple may have thought he was within his “rights” to bargain for children, but it is highly immoral to do so. That is also the same reason why slavery and child trafficking are illegal in most part of the world, and yet sadly, many people to this day are in bondage because of black-market deals. In 1×4, Emma Swan, who is grew up in the US, challenged Mr. Gold’s claim to Ashley’s baby and threatened that his contract wouldn’t stand up in a real court of law. So, again, I’m not even sure Mr. Gold had any sort of legal right to baby Alexandra once in SB, even if technically, he had a “magical” right.
"That’s how you know you’ve really got a home. When you leave it, there’s this feeling that you can’t shake. You just miss it." Neal Cassidy
I’m not even sure Mr. Gold had no sort of legal right to baby Alexandra, even if technically, he had a “magical” right.
His contract had no meaning in OUR land. He is not from here, has no degrees or lawful hold or anything like that to make a legal contract. But in the FTL…. He’s trafficked with kings and queens and all that… I think in the EF, his contract really was legal.
"I could have the giant duck as my steed!" --Daniel Radcliffe
Keeper Of Tamara's Taser , Jafar's Staff, Kitsis’s Glasses , Ariel’s Tail, Dopey's Hat , Peter Pan’s Shadow, Outfit, & Pied Cloak,Red Queen's Castle, White Rabbit's Power To World Hop, Zelena's BroomStick, & ALL MAGICRumple may have thought he was within his “rights” to bargain for children, but it is highly immoral to do so. That is also the same reason why slavery and child trafficking are illegal in most part of the world, and yet sadly, many people to this day are in bondage because of black-market deals. In 1×4, Emma Swan, who is from our world and grew up in the US, challenged Mr. Gold’s claim to Ashley’s baby and threatened that his contract wouldn’t stand up in a real court of law. So, again, I’m not even sure Mr. Gold had no sort of legal right to baby Alexandra, even if technically, he had a “magical” right.
Very immoral but I think we need to keep in mind that he never actually wanted the baby, in FTL or in SB.
In FTL Rumple manipulated the situation in order to get his real end goal: jail.
In SB, I very much doubt that Gold wanted Ashleys baby at all. He wanted that favor from Emma. But he needed her to bargain for it. So he pretended, just like he did in FTL, that he had a right to Ashely’s baby but the whole time he was waiting for Emma to come to him with a deal.
In both cases he got what he really wanted, which wasn’t a baby.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"
The topic ‘Can You Deny A Villain Their "Rights"?’ is closed to new replies.