- This topic has 57 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Just imagine a FTL court. Who would be the Judge? Who would be the lawyers? Who would be the Jury? Imagine the cases
Cinderella vs Rumplestiltskin
Regina vs Snow White
Regina vs Belle
Snow White vs Rumplestiltskin
Maurice vs Rumplestiltskin
Gepetto vs Jiminy Cricket
Jiminy Cricket vs Rumplestiltskin
Blue Fairy vs Rumplestiltskin
Baelfire vs Rumplestiltskin
Tinkerbell vs Blue Fairy
The Enchanted Forest vs ReginaGood job Rumple has legal knowledge in Storybrooke because he would’ve been in FTL court a lot.
[adrotate group="5"]All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixBut 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.
Then is the Wizard evil for ruling the people of Oz? Being ruled over isn’t an injustice. She enslaved the Winkies is a more accurate way of saying it, okay, but the whole shoe thing is irrelevant to that. Glinda could have offed her years ago had she got out of hand. But instead she let her continue to enslave them. Im saying in the case of the shoes, it is wrong to deny them to her since technically she cant do much more than what she already has since 1.) The shoes obviously cant be that powerful because the previous owner only took over 1/4th of Oz, 2.) Glinda is a very powerful sorceress on God-like level who wouldn’t have allowed it. and 3.)….C’mon…its her sisters shoes!
"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 MAGICIs there any character on Once that has not infringed on another character’s rights in some way?
Belle–she might be our best bet in answering this question.
Technically Belle has infringed on Hook’s rights. She trespassed on his ship and assaulted him. However it was in self defence and Hook had it coming.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of Felix1.) The shoes obviously cant be that powerful because the previous owner only took over 1/4th of Oz, 2.) Glinda is a very powerful sorceress on God-like level who wouldn’t have allowed it. and 3.)….C’mon…its her sisters shoes!
1) But she still took over 1/4 of Oz. Why do their right matter less just because it’s a small percentage? Who is to say that the Wicked Witch wouldn’t have taken over another 1/4. That’s now half. And then another 1/4 That’s 3/4.
2) But Glinda obviously let the first 1/4 fall. Could she have stopped the next 1/4. Also, you’re bringing in source material that I’m not familiar with. You said to consider the movie, and I am.
3) And what was she going to do with them? Just wear them? What was she intending to do with them. Because based on the movie she wasn’t exactly going to put them in a closet and mourn.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"TheWatcher wrote: 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
Sorry 😛 by subjects, I just meant the creatures in her kingdom. We don’t know what she has been using Dark Magic for. But I assume it was for deals. In a comic we saw her make a deal with the eel men for the leviathan cave she has in the film, for example. Even if her deals are sour, she is the Queen. She makes the laws and they obey them. Someone asks for a youth spell and she turns them into a baby, oh well, you got what you wanted, pay me now. That wouldn’t sit well with most and make them unhappy but it is what it is, to me. I think Triton is wrong for stealing HER kingdom.
"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 MAGICWhat is moral and what is legal are not often the same, though we try in civilized society to get them close. In modern times we believe in the social contract and that those who rule do so with the consent of the governed–but only to a point. Depending on what country the people retain the right to select new leaders. Contrast this to the more feudal view point of haves and have nots, a class based society where your efforts and skill mean little versus the whims of those of higher station who have “birthrights”.
People can confuse rights with privilege. There is a saying, your right to extend your fist stops where another person’s nose begins.
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” -- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass
TheWatcher wrote: 1.) The shoes obviously cant be that powerful because the previous owner only took over 1/4th of Oz, 2.) Glinda is a very powerful sorceress on God-like level who wouldn’t have allowed it. and 3.)….C’mon…its her sisters shoes!
1) But she still took over 1/4 of Oz. Why do their right matter less just because it’s a small percentage? Who is to say that the Wicked Witch wouldn’t have taken over another 1/4. That’s now half. And then another 1/4 That’s 3/4. 2) But Glinda obviously let the first 1/4 fall. Could she have stopped the next 1/4. Also, you’re bringing in source material that I’m not familiar with. You said to consider the movie, and I am. 3) And what was she going to do with them? Just wear them? What was she intending to do with them. Because based on the movie she wasn’t exactly going to put them in a closet and mourn.
You’re right, im using the book o.o but about the 1/4 it implies she says (in the film) “When I get those Ruby Slippers, my power will be the greatest in Oz”. Im sure she’d use them for some type of magics and spells but really, she cant take over Oz. Book-Glinda is a lot more powerful then movie Glinda and would not have let her. But I guess that’s irrelevant to my argument since its not the movie. You win this one, RG 😛
"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 MAGICSorry 😛 by subjects, I just meant the creatures in her kingdom. We don’t know what she has been using Dark Magic for. But I assume it was for deals
1) Are the creatures sentient? As sentient as the merfolk? And you ASSUME for deals. Well, I’m not going to touch that. lol. You assume but you don’t know! Maybe I assume that she using dark magics to conjure up fish demons to attack Triton!
Even if her deals are sour, she is the Queen. She makes the laws and they obey them
Alright, Hobbes. (no seriously, go read John Locke because what you’re talking about sounds very Divine Right of Kings and absolute monarchy)
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"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 Ashley’s 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.
Oh, I realize that Rumple never really wanted baby Alexandra. She was just a means to an end. What he wanted was to manipulate events so that he regained his FTL identity when Emma arrived in SB and got her to make a deal with him in exchange for the baby. But as Rumple himself told Regina in S1, “intent is meaningless.” What counts are words, details, the fine points of a deal, contracts. Etc… He still made an immoral deal for self gain, whether he really cared about the acquisition of the baby or not.
There have been other times I’m sure where Rumple has made shady black-market deals for babies. For instance, King George got to raise David’s brother, James. Even though James grew up with the privileges of a prince, he grew up to be wretched because his adoptive father was hard-hearted, conniving, and corrupt. By contrast, David grew up a poor, humble shepherd, and yet has the heart of a true prince, despite having no royal title of his own, because he was raised by an upright, moral mother. So, David was better off than James in a lot of ways. Rumple was responsible for James’ corrupt upbringing, you could argue.
slurpeez108 wrote: 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.
True, in the EF, the contracts that Rumplestiltskin made seem to be legally binding because of the laws of magic. It seems like once you make a deal with Rumple, there are heft consequences even if you don’t break it. “Magic always comes with a price,” is a warning Rumple always gives. And therein lies the danger with dark magic. Dark magic seems to trump basic human morality. It fundamentally carries a heavy price, so people who are desperate enough to seek out the Dark One, are essentially making deals with the devil. While I love Rumple and sympathize with him for being desperate enough to try and save his son from the Ogres Wars, he essentially sold his soul to the devil when he became the next dark one. And the price was to lose his son not only once, but twice.
"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
But as Rumple himself told Regina in S1, “intent is meaningless.” What counts are words, details, the fine points of a deal, contracts. Etc… He still made an immoral deal for self gain, whether he really cared about the acquisition of the baby or not.
So is Rumple’s intent over the course of 300 years to find his son meaningless? Because Regina counters that intention is everything. Something Rumple knows full well given that everything he has done was in the name of finding his child. Something his apologists (like myself) are quick to point out when his detractors go against him.
"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.