Jasmine's baddie ??

[Dyoll]

Why in the buffy-bords avatar section it has Jasmin under baddie??She was aiming for world peace just a few people had to die... A acceptable sacrifice... sorry if this has already been discussed

[Blondie Bear]

It wasn't just about people dying. It was about the loss of self-determination, self-control, and free will. In order to be a peaceful world, everyone had to stop being human. Kind of like Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

[Dancing man]

She was doing the good thing the wrong way.

[Lyri]

She was eating people! :lmao: That's evil in my book! But I really liked Jasmin...she made me laugh.

[Dancing man]

She was eating people! :lmao: That's evil in my book! But I really liked Jasmin...she made me laugh.

Yeah It wasnt as black and white as that though. Eating a few people to save billions is a fair trade.

Unless your the one being eaten. :lmao:

[Joyce Summers]

I agree with what Blondie Bear said- it was very Body Snatchersish.

For there to be total world peace people can not be allowed to disagree, which means they cannot be allowed to have an opinion, thus free will goes out of the window.
If we're ever going to have that kind of peace in the world, it has to be on our terms and because we actively made the decision. Not because some otherworldly being eradicates our thoughts, our opinions, everything that makes us who we are.
World peace at the sacrifice of hundreds of lives, and myself? The loss of my own identity, rendering me unable to enjoy the peace that I didn't even actively achieve beyond letting myself be controlled by something outside of me? No thanks. I'll take average world quiet over that world peace anyday.

Plus like Lyri said- anything that eats people is evil in my book. It's like cannibalism but to the Nth term where N is an impossibly high number

[Dyoll]

True... But still I don’t think she should be in with the.... gentlemen who collect hearts! Caleb who has the power of pure evil in him and the master who is just genraly evil. Jasmine's dosent fall in that group .

[Lyri]

She was the main bad guy of Angel Season 4, she was created to be the evil character. Where else would you put her?

[Joyce Summers]

If we're going to go with the argument of 'It's not the same level of evil' then can we call any demon evil? After all, they are just doing what's in their nature. They were born to be evil.
Just like we don't call lions evil for killing their prey maybe we shouldn't call demons evil for killing theirs.

Jasmine took away free will, ate people and sacrificed Cordy's life for her own, not to mention the innocent girl who was sliced and diced so she could be brought into the world. She may not be the same type of Evil as Caleb and The Gentlemen but then neither was The Master or Glory (Who really just wanted to go home after all) or The Trio (who were just humans). They are all evil, just with different techniques and motives. That's how I see it anyway.

[Dyoll]

Her intentions were good though she went about it the right way. All the other "baddies" new what they was doing was evil and kept at it however jasmine thought she was doing right trying to help people rather then destroy them like the other "baddies".

[randiann]

She was trying to take over the world; that is never a good thing. She was all about the power, not about making everyone happy. She took away their free will, and ate some of them. Jasmine=EVIL

To me that statement is like saying "Well Hitler was JUST trying to help out the Caucasian population. It's not his fault he had to kill people in order for them to flourish..."

[Lyri]

Like Joyce said, what about Glory? All she wanted to do was go home. She knew that people would die in the process, but to her they were accpetable sacrifices. Dawn was an acceptable sacrifice. Was what she did any more or less wrong than what Jasmine did?

Both of them wanted a better world for themselves...Glory wanted to go home, Jasmine wanted world peace.

Both of them were willing to sacrifice an innocent girl for their own purposes...in Glory's case, this person was Dawn, in Jasmine's it was the school girl Connor found. But, in Jasmine's case, she actually succeeded in her sacrifice, Connor killed the girl.

Both of them turned their backs on the conscequences of their actions...by opening the portal, Glory would unleash hell on Earth. By creating world peace, Jasmine had to take away everyone's free will.

How can you class one of them as evil, and thus believe they deserve to be in the baddies catagory, and think the other was simply misunderstood?

[Dyoll]

I agree with what Joyce said but I never put glory in my list of other baddies. And yea I do see your point I hadn’t thought of it like that. I wasn’t ever meaning to say Jasmine was a goodie I just wanted to debate it. thanks for this I now have a clearer point of view on her.

[Joyce Summers]

All the other "baddies" new what they was doing was evil and kept at it however jasmine thought she was doing right trying to help people rather then destroy them like the other "baddies".

Ah, but the wrong thing done for the right reasons is still the wrong thing....


(And as for wanting to debate Jasmine- you clearly picked a good topic, hehe)

[Dyoll]

That’s true didn’t think of that either

(And thanks as you can see I am new glad I picked a good topic to start talking about.)

[Kana]

I think it is a good debate. The difference between Jasmine and the others was her argument. Let us assume that she is telling the truth. Jasmine's argument about the deaths she caused was in her view a Utilitarian argument. There is presumably no human upside to Glory's plan but Jasmine (and Lilah) argued that either way you look at it there will be a price. Jasmine argued that although she made a choice which resulted in people's death, so did Angel. If her Utilitarian argument holds up, more people will die because of Angel, not only that, the people who do die will possibly die lonely and unhappy.

In short, Jasmine could at least present a case of justification for her actions. Whether they can be excused is debatable but most would agree with Angel that the price is too high. Also Jasmine was questioning which is more evil, suffering or robbing people of free will. The First Evil, for example presumably would bring about the end of the world, whereby people would suffer. If we believe Jasmine (and I'm not saying we have to) she was trying help people but she had a different view of how to make things right than Angel.

I'd assume that the FE didn't care about making anything right for mankind. Jasmine would not perhaps advocate what FE was doing because it would lead to human suffering. Again making the assumption that Jasmine believe she making things right for us, then she at least had good intentions, which makes Jasmine more morally ambiguous than anything else. Angel originally assumed that she simply wanted power but it possible that simply believed that mankind could save themselves from the pain we in effect have created ourselves.

From the subjective point of view, I value my free will from personal perspective and would be happy to keep my pain in exchange for my identity and ideals, however, from the inside of her influence, I'd be happier. It really depends on you values and principles. Most of us would say "I don't want to suffer" but it's more arguable what price we'd pay for ending it. Jasmine argues more than once that absolute good doesn't exist, only different concepts or indeed human concepts of good. I don't agree with Jasmine's world order but I do think that it's a argument of beliefs and concepts. Angel believes that freedom is worth pain, Jasmine cannot understand why this concept is so important if it's only a point of view and not an absolute. Her argument is that if you take away moral absolutes, you simply have a world of suffering or a world without suffering, however Jasmine takes away the choice to make the initial decision. If we want pain, give us pain.

[Hello Cutie]

I guess everything in this world isn't black and white. And that's the problem- what she was doing was the 'right' thing, but in the 'wrong' way... it depends if you find it acceptable to see a few die to achieve world peace, or whether every human has the right to live in a less than perfect world. In Angel, the fact that they tried to stop her made her a 'baddie' hence why she's under that category.

[Starlet]

For me, Jasmine is definitely a baddie. She started committing terrible murders even before she was born. And bringing The Beast to LA. How many people died because of this? In my opinion, this is enough to qualify someone as evil. Good person would never kill so many human beings. The fact that the purpose was saving billions of people doesn't justify that. Every single life is important. Everyone wants to live, despite this death of one person affects many others ( family, friends).
But Jasmine tried also to control everyone. She took away their ability of having their own opinions. And they weren't themselves without them. The prize of perfect happiness and peace was too high and people couldn't even decide whether they want to pay it or not.

[palabravampiress]

I think I would have liked to have given Jasmine more of a chance... seen what she could do. That's hard for me to say. I value freedom above pretty much anything. 99% of the time, individual free will is better than a fascist state (or world) in which your choice is to tow the pretty, happy party line or be killed. That's not really good, it's just the appearance of good. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and history has proven time and time again that individual human facist leaders tend to lead to more suffering and killing than good once the numbers are tallied in the end.

But Jasmine wasn't a human. She was a God. I think that, given the chance, she might have surprised us. I think she had a better than average chance of ensuring peace, happiness, and prosperity for the people of the world. A lot of people die willingly for peace every day (ironically, they do so in war). If it came down to it and I was one of the chosen, I'd probably willingly give my life in order to maintain the world that Jasmine promised.

I think I would have put Jasmine on the side of good had she done one thing differently: chosen Angel & co. as a senate, as a sort of check-and-balances sort of thing. I think Jasmine needed a panel of humans who could use their human experience to help keep Jasmine honest and acting in the best interest of their fellow humans. The fact that she wantes absolute power and didn't leave anyone with free will is what makes me question her true motives.

[Kana]

But Jasmine clearly didn't trust humans to make the decision. If she had, she wouldn't have even bothered to do all that. Jasmine lacks the basic faith that mankind can help themselves. To her it would be like giving a toddler the final say. She honestly believes that humans will destroy themselves without ultimate conforming to her so called version of good.

[eunsoma]

she was the reason Cordy died.. Nuff said.. lol

[Angel's vision]

I fail to see why anyone who was willing to mess around with an already messed up minded kid's mind and suck an innocent's life force (Cordelia) to give oneself a life, get called Good in whatever terms!

Jasmine not only violated Cordy's mind and body (to enforce yourself inside another's body against their wish is *Rape*) she violated everyone's mind by making them into her "robots"!

I'd say that to do evil in order to do "good" is just not on, and is evil in my book.

[Dlou444]

Well, it seems to me, if Angel's beating the crap out of her and she has Fred running and hiding underground, forcing everyone to bend to HER will and eating people, that's bad....even if the brain washed people were happy while under her spell.
Glory had her lackey's too, I bet they liked her. Doesn't make her good.

Besides, how many subcategories do the Avatars on a message board need? There's already a zillion. Should we really have baddies and "not so baddies", "more bad than goodies", "50-50 baddies"? Wonder where the mayor fits in there or Faith...ACK, what about Harmony!?!?! No one would ever be able to find who they're looking for. Guess "baddies" will just have to cover it.

[TheHeartist]

Jasmine was the turning point for Angel and co. (especially Angel himself.) She WAS a Power, she was the epitome of what the Powers were: higher beings who sat back on their lazy asses while their champions did all the hard work, and suffered, occasionally lifting a finger to nudge their champions in the right direction. Jasmine claimed she had come to put a stop to all that, but she was enslaving them and making them do her work for her just as the Powers have been. Therefore, sick of the Powers and their inability to act, Angel allies himself with Wolfram & Hart instead.

So, to answer your question: Evil. Apathy is a sin. (As is mass mind control and body and mind rape!)

[SintiKid]

I would say that Jasmine is a baddy hands down. I think the point is that sometimes the most evil ideas can be packaged in a way that makes them seem great (at first).

[Caleb]

she in theroy was ment to be good, as she brought on world peace and that is why in the end angel was given wolfram and hart as he destoryed it
how ever agreeing with dlou444 about making fred hide, she was bad, you could also think of it as a end of seson boss which are always evil and they have to defeat...so in conclusion she should have been killed :D

[The Ferg]

It wasn't just about people dying. It was about the loss of self-determination, self-control, and free will. In order to be a peaceful world, everyone had to stop being human. Kind of like Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

QFT, you pretty much nailed it right on the head.

[LorneyTunes]

yes i think she is Evil and the right to be in the baddies , controlling everyone like a God, eating people for the greater good?? ( bit wesely eh??) plus look what she did to Cordy come on totally evil x

[littlewilly]

Not only is she evil, but also the crappest big bad theres been. id have prefered it if it was the beast as the big bad.

[LorneyTunes]

season 6 of buffy had no Big bad apart from themselves and Willow being a magic junkie and that was far better than season 4s jasmine x

[Kana]

I still really liked the concept of Jasmine. I find it hard to simply cast Jasmine as the bad guy. Ok so she killed people. As she pointed out many people would die as the result of Angel's decision. Angel admitted in The Thine Dead Line, he can live with people dying as long as their civil rights remain intact. Ok so she messed with free will and personal identity. Hello! Angel did that in Home anyway. He changed everyone's identity and messed with their free will by raping them of their memories. Why? Because he cared about Connor, the same way Jasmine said she cared about mankind. Jasmine was the lie but Angel also created a lie and violated the friends who trusted him in the worst way.

Now I understand Angel's actions but I can't then say that Jasmine was simply evil if she was essentially doing the same thing. I don't agree with either action but I can understand both of them. I think even Angel tried to connect with Jasmine in that way...

Angel: Ok, so maybe it's not the world you wanted but maybe you can still help to make it better (paraphrased, maybe).

Of course Jasmine was a little pissed when her world order was destroyed and doesn't believe that makind can save itself. She doesn't believe Angel is right in saying there is an absolute good. Perhaps she was somewhat of an emotivist and believes it's all about how one feels. If people are mostly happy then that's good. Like I said earlier, in terms of practicality there is always going to be a price.

I like Jasmine, to me she is interesting and ambiguous. Angel made a grand decision that affected free will but he did because he cared. This could apply to Jasmine but ultimately, I agree with Angel, not because he's simply right because he's the good guy. I admire him for places faith in mankind even when Jasmine was right that he couldn't prove objectively that mankind wouldn't rape, torture themselves to death or suffer in the cess pool that is the apocalypse largly because of our weakness, apathy nd greed. He was willing to give us a chance even though he didn't know if we could pull it off and make the world a better place.

[littlewilly]

I agree that i dont think she was the most evilist. She thought she was doing the right thing like, as Kana said, Angel. and Jonathan done it in Superstar. im trying to remember if anyone else messed with peoples free will! theres probably a couple more. Anya...

[Bluebird]

I think Willow messed with people's free will a lot with the memory spells and the like.

[littlewilly]

oh yeah, thats right, willow was such a bitch in s6, got too big for her boots.

[lemst6]

I think that Jasmine was a great idea. She wasn't as "exciting" as other baddies but I think the concept of her was very humanistic because everyone always talks about peace on earth, which is what she was bringing, but I think that it shows that peace on earth comes with a price and that it's not all glitz and glamour. I also kinda got the sense of the "anti-christ" theory about her. Like, she was all beautiful and what she was offering was wonderful, but that there was an evil plan behind the wonder.

[InsaneMystic]

It's a difficult case... (and anyway, I've said more than once that I'm not big on the "good-evil"-dichotomy.)

I don't think what she did to come into this world (all the Beast stuff, but even more so manipulating Connor into killing the virgin) can be justified. However, from the moment she's born, I can't deny that I'm with her; she would have a willing slave in me, and I so understand everyones adoration for her even though her godly thrall didn't work over my TV set (I guess :biggrin:). I'd throw my "free will" (a concept I don't believe in IRL anyway) out of the window any time if I had the chance of trading it in for happiness, peace and unity with all humankind. Heck, even if I get eaten, I'd die happy. If I had the misfortune of getting infected with her blood, I'd BEG her, on my knees, in tears, to eat me to end my suffering (having lost my best chance for The Good Life, and doing the best I could still do to uphold the Greater Good). I guess that means I consider the concept of "direct theocracy"/"benign dictatorship" - which I regard as utterly unfeasible with a human dictator, as I share Jasmines pessimism about humanity - as superior to democracy (don't get me wrong: IRL, democracy, second best as it is, still wins out any old day against any feasible alternative).

Yes, it's Bodysnatchery. Yes, it creeps me out when she speaks to the mouth of her "Hive" (especially that burning guy in the carwreck or that sewer kid). But in all honesty, I'd pretty much do anything to belong to the Shiny Happy People.

So she's one of the ABSOLUTE BEST Big Bads for me (second only to Dark Willow - but I'm a Willoholic - and maybe Angelus)... as she's about the only one who's so totally morally ambiguous that she gets me deep into moral-philosophical debating and rooting for her against the heroes of the show. I can't call her evil if I want to pretend being one of the good guys.

[Lindsey McDonald]

It's a difficult case... (and anyway, I've said more than once that I'm not big on the "good-evil"-dichotomy.)

I don't think what she did to come into this world (all the Beast stuff, but even more so manipulating Connor into killing the virgin) can be justified. However, from the moment she's born, I can't deny that I'm with her; she would have a willing slave in me, and I so understand everyones adoration for her even though her godly thrall didn't work over my TV set (I guess :biggrin:). I'd throw my "free will" (a concept I don't believe in IRL anyway) out of the window any time if I had the chance of trading it in for happiness, peace and unity with all humankind. Heck, even if I get eaten, I'd die happy. If I had the misfortune of getting infected with her blood, I'd BEG her, on my knees, in tears, to eat me to end my suffering (having lost my best chance for The Good Life, and doing the best I could still do to uphold the Greater Good). I guess that means I consider the concept of "direct theocracy"/"benign dictatorship" - which I regard as utterly unfeasible with a human dictator, as I share Jasmines pessimism about humanity - as superior to democracy (don't get me wrong: IRL, democracy, second best as it is, still wins out any old day against any feasible alternative).

Yes, it's Bodysnatchery. Yes, it creeps me out when she speaks to the mouth of her "Hive" (especially that burning guy in the carwreck or that sewer kid). But in all honesty, I'd pretty much do anything to belong to the Shiny Happy People.

So she's one of the ABSOLUTE BEST Big Bads for me (second only to Dark Willow - but I'm a Willoholic - and maybe Angelus)... as she's about the only one who's so totally morally ambiguous that she gets me deep into moral-philosophical debating and rooting for her against the heroes of the show. I can't call her evil if I want to pretend being one of the good guys.

I totally agree with you. People get far too hung up on the concept of free will. The truth is if it was taken away, we wouldn't miss it. And I mean truly taken away, not suppressed. I think Jasmine could have created a Utopian society. So she might have killed thousands. She might have liked her temples. She might actually be all maggoty. She also might have made every single person in the world utterly and completely happy. In the Buffyverse order of things, everyone would have gone to a paradise after death, because their would be no sin (and if there was, it would be Jasmine who would be responsible, not them). The world would become completely equal, and evil would be eradicated.

People wouldn't have their own ideas and opinions, but so what? They would be completely and utterly happy and fulfilled. Think about it: if people lived already in Jasmine's society, and someone had been going about injecting them with her blood then they would have been seen as the series' big bad. What use is free will if it only brings pain?

Also, as IM said, this isn't some human or demon getting uppity with the magicks: Jasmine is a "Power that Was". She is a God in its purest form - not like Glory. She has the power to create an actual, uncorruptible utopia. I can't help but see this as a good thing. And the people who die to sustain her? They feel happy to do it. Their families feel happy to let them. Death is only a bad thing to those left behind, and if everybody was eternally happy, we would have a totally different concept of life and death.

I loved Jasmine as a parralel to Glory also. Joss realy played on our expectations, which had us assuming she was evil from the start. Essentially, Jasmine was the ultimate Big Bad, simply because she was the Big Good. The fact that this was playing against the rise of the First Evil in Sunnydale was sublime. You really need to think this through before you jump on the free will bandwagon - what exactly would you loose? Absolutely nothing you would miss, and a whole lot you could do without.

[HyenaDemon]

The thing about forcing utopia on us is: We weren't MEANT to live in utopia. We weren't MEANT to be at peace. If we were meant to be free of conflict or any negative emotions, we would've been wired to do so in the first place. We would've never been designed to be angry. We would've never been designed to be sad. We would've never been designed to be annoyed. If we were meant to be at peace, we wouldn't have these emotions in the first place. But we do, and there has to be a reason for this.

The thing is: what right does Jasmine have to force utopia on us? What right does she have to tell us that we're not living our lives the way we should? She was interfering with our nature. Is it ridiculous for me to be against the fact that I could be, say, saved from a serial killer or theif thanks to Jasmine? Perhaps. It's not my fault that someone wanted to kill me/steal from me, so why should I be against an act of God to help save my life? The thing is, I shouldn't have to justify myself to some self-proclaimed higher being. Neither does humanity.

Sure, you can say "But if you were under Jasmine's spell, none of the things you complained about would matter. Because under Jasmine's spell, you wouldn't care about those things anymore". You can also apply that same logic to murder. Why should we care if someone decided to murder every single being on the planet? Whatever we have against that, it's not like it's gonna matter once we're dead. Kinda hard to care when you're ability to have emotions are no longer existant, right? That's basically what Jasmine did to us. Jasmine murdered humanity, because inside, we were truly dead.

I'm not saying Jasmine counts as a villain, more like an anti-villain. She had good intentions, but essentially what she was doing was interfering with nature. If we truly want the world to become a better place, we have to improve ourselves. Our technology, our knowledge, our act, our education, you name it.

[Keanoite]

I totally agree with you. People get far too hung up on the concept of free will. The truth is if it was taken away, we wouldn't miss it. And I mean truly taken away, not suppressed. I think Jasmine could have created a Utopian society. So she might have killed thousands. She might have liked her temples. She might actually be all maggoty. She also might have made every single person in the world utterly and completely happy. In the Buffyverse order of things, everyone would have gone to a paradise after death, because their would be no sin (and if there was, it would be Jasmine who would be responsible, not them). The world would become completely equal, and evil would be eradicated.

People wouldn't have their own ideas and opinions, but so what? They would be completely and utterly happy and fulfilled. Think about it: if people lived already in Jasmine's society, and someone had been going about injecting them with her blood then they would have been seen as the series' big bad. What use is free will if it only brings pain?

Also, as IM said, this isn't some human or demon getting uppity with the magicks: Jasmine is a "Power that Was". She is a God in its purest form - not like Glory. She has the power to create an actual, uncorruptible utopia. I can't help but see this as a good thing. And the people who die to sustain her? They feel happy to do it. Their families feel happy to let them. Death is only a bad thing to those left behind, and if everybody was eternally happy, we would have a totally different concept of life and death.

I loved Jasmine as a parralel to Glory also. Joss realy played on our expectations, which had us assuming she was evil from the start. Essentially, Jasmine was the ultimate Big Bad, simply because she was the Big Good. The fact that this was playing against the rise of the First Evil in Sunnydale was sublime. You really need to think this through before you jump on the free will bandwagon - what exactly would you loose? Absolutely nothing you would miss, and a whole lot you could do without.


People get far too hung up on the concept of free will

With the freest of will that I possess I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Free will makes you who you are. Every choice you make determines who you were and who you will be. You take that away and you are a puppet. Happiness would cease to exist if our right to choose was taken from us. We only recognise joy becuase we have sorrow to compare it to. If you take away that bad then you also take the good. Free will is ESSENTIAL to who we are as people. There is a reason people have fought so doggedly for it since the dawn of time. Free will is like oxygen. We need it to survive.


There were 5 times in your post where you expressed how you felt or thought. Without free will you would not have been able to do that.

[InsaneMystic]

Ooh, post dissection time. Love it. :biggrin:

With the freest of will that I possess I wholeheartedly disagree with you.
No need to give you bad karma for it, but I'm destined to (read: have my most unfree will bent to the inevitable conclusion of) wholehearted disagreement with your opinion. :)

Free will makes you who you are. Every choice you make determines who you were and who you will be. You take that away and you are a puppet.
It's fully the other way around - who you are determines the choices you make.

I'm convinced to be a puppet, not only of God in the metaphysical sense, but also of my genes and the results of my socio-psychological upbringing. If you were able to know all the variables, I am convinced that you could always, with 100% accuracy, foretell how any one given human being would act in any given situation. There's nothing "free" about that, it's pretty much just a complex mathematical formula arriving at one and only one result.

In order for your will to be "free", there should, for a starting example, be nothing inherently objectionable for you to toss a coin upon returning home, with heads meaning you kiss your spouse, tail you stab them to death. If you belong to the est. 99.99% of people who find that difference to be meaningful, that means you have your decision process tilted to a preference already, so your will to decide is not free.

If free will made you who you are, there would be no possibility, ever, of describing "who you are". You would have no noticable traits of character, no social role with expectations to fulfill, no stable history of behavior in relation to people in your life. Interaction with you would equal playing a game of (multi-sided) dice. You would be unbelievably screwed up, and in all likelihood end up locked away, very securely, in a mental ward for the rest of your life, as you'd be an inconceivable danger to both yourself and anyone you get in contact with.

Happiness would cease to exist if our right to choose was taken from us. We only recognise joy becuase we have sorrow to compare it to. If you take away that bad then you also take the good.
Happiness is not a result of free will. Happiness is a result of happiness-inducing circumstances. Insert a chip into someone's brain to make it churn out endorphines and serotonin, and you've got happiness at the touch of a button, who- or whatever the buttontoucher may be.

Free will is ESSENTIAL to who we are as people. There is a reason people have fought so doggedly for it since the dawn of time. Free will is like oxygen. We need it to survive.
What people have fought doggedly for is not free will. It's freedom from oppression by people who force you to bend your actions to their will. (The difference to Jasmine being here, Jasmine doesn't bend your actions to her will, she decides what your will is. She's, so to say, the "super-determiner", overruling the determiners you already have - genes, character, societal role etc.). If free will were reached (thankfully, there's no way that could ever happen), society would utterly collapse, as every decision would be randomized, making anarchic chaos ensue the likes of which noone can imagine.

There were 5 times in your post where you expressed how you felt or thought. Without free will you would not have been able to do that.
Even without going deep into the solipsism debate (whether or not the source of my feelings/thoughts/convictions is "me" or someone/something else, and how the hell anyone could ever know the answer to that), I see no connection between the act of expressing thoughts and opinions and the question whether or not you "freely" arrived at them. If you brainwash someone into believing propaganda, they can most definitely express "The Truth" you made them believe, even though there's nothing "free" at all about their arriving at those points of view.

[JCC]

If you didn't have free will, you wouldn't be posting in this thread right now because you'd be too busy doing whatever was programmed into you by your dictator. I don't think the people who say "free will isn't great" actually understand the importance of free will. Without it you're just a fleshy computer, meaning that you're incapable of feeling anything anyway. You couldn't be happy. You could have happiness programmed into you, but that wouldn't be happiness, that would be another layer of the program.

[InsaneMystic]

If you didn't have free will, you wouldn't be posting in this thread right now because you'd be too busy doing whatever was programmed into you by your dictator.
Unless, of course, posting into this thread was the thing I was programmed to do. Duh!

I don't think the people who say "free will isn't great" actually understand the importance of free will. Without it you're just a fleshy computer, meaning that you're incapable of feeling anything anyway. You couldn't be happy. You could have happiness programmed into you, but that wouldn't be happiness, that would be another layer of the program.
So yes, indeed I am a fleshy computer, and my emotions are a layer of the program. I don't see where you make out a problem?

[JCC]

Unless, of course, posting into this thread was the thing I was programmed to do. Duh!


So yes, indeed I am a fleshy computer, and my emotions are a layer of the program. I don't see where you make out a problem?
The part where there's no distinction between you and a laptop is the problem. A world with no art, no music, no writing, just people programmed to work and work, the highest form of slavery forced upon a people knowing no better. Without free will, we wouldn't exist. Only a shell would exist.

[Lindsey McDonald]

The thing about forcing utopia on us is: We weren't MEANT to live in utopia. We weren't MEANT to be at peace. If we were meant to be free of conflict or any negative emotions, we would've been wired to do so in the first place. We would've never been designed to be angry. We would've never been designed to be sad. We would've never been designed to be annoyed. If we were meant to be at peace, we wouldn't have these emotions in the first place. But we do, and there has to be a reason for this.

Well that's a bit of a cop out, no? You could apply that argument to any level of being, and say that Jasmine herself was designed to be able to control us, and her not doing so is her going against her nature. The very fact that she is able to do it shows that we (as a quasi-ficticious people in the boundaries of the program, at least), are designed to be controlled and overruled.

The thing is: what right does Jasmine have to force utopia on us? What right does she have to tell us that we're not living our lives the way we should? She was interfering with our nature. Is it ridiculous for me to be against the fact that I could be, say, saved from a serial killer or theif thanks to Jasmine? Perhaps. It's not my fault that someone wanted to kill me/steal from me, so why should I be against an act of God to help save my life? The thing is, I shouldn't have to justify myself to some self-proclaimed higher being. Neither does humanity.

Firstly, she is not a self proclamed higher being. She is a higher being. Secondly, again, the fact that she can interfere with our nature shows that our nature is flexible and thus not the absolute foundation that people cling to. And you wouldn't be justifying yourself to her. You wouldn't need to by default. Thats the whole point.

Sure, you can say "But if you were under Jasmine's spell, none of the things you complained about would matter. Because under Jasmine's spell, you wouldn't care about those things anymore". You can also apply that same logic to murder. Why should we care if someone decided to murder every single being on the planet? Whatever we have against that, it's not like it's gonna matter once we're dead. Kinda hard to care when you're ability to have emotions are no longer existant, right? That's basically what Jasmine did to us. Jasmine murdered humanity, because inside, we were truly dead.

Like I said in my previous post, in this situation life and death as concepts would have to be re-examined. Death is only a problem to those left alive, especially in the Buffyverse where there are very established heavens and hells. Now, if someone killed everyone in the Buffyverse before Jasmine took over, that would be ambiguous, as a lot of people would suffer. Afterwards - not a problem, as they would all (eventually) go to paradise. In the real world, where we don't know for sure the existance of any kind of afterlife, the only effect of death we can possibly judge is on the living. In that regard we are hugely biased and cannot really look at the matter objectively. If everybody died, would it really be so bad? We can't really know. If the certainty was that everyboy was eternaly happy (paradise or Jasmine's reign), then it's a perfectly viable alternative.

I'm not saying Jasmine counts as a villain, more like an anti-villain. She had good intentions, but essentially what she was doing was interfering with nature. If we truly want the world to become a better place, we have to improve ourselves. Our technology, our knowledge, our act, our education, you name it.

Again, I say that in the very act of her interfering with this "nature", she exposes it's unreliability. Why is it such a violation? In the Buffyverse, it will have been the PTB that constructed it in the first place. We know they, and The First guide it. Jasmine is effectively removing the Evil component of this guidance. Is she perfecting nature by doing this? Or is evil something that is important to humanity?

With the freest of will that I possess I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Free will makes you who you are. Every choice you make determines who you were and who you will be. You take that away and you are a puppet. Happiness would cease to exist if our right to choose was taken from us. We only recognise joy becuase we have sorrow to compare it to. If you take away that bad then you also take the good. Free will is ESSENTIAL to who we are as people. There is a reason people have fought so doggedly for it since the dawn of time. Free will is like oxygen. We need it to survive.


There were 5 times in your post where you expressed how you felt or thought. Without free will you would not have been able to do that.

Free will is not a catalyst for happiness. That much is clear from the depiction of Jasmine's followers in the Buffyverse, and logically makes sense. Whether happiness is purely a chemical situation or partially a metaphysical state, why would people need to choose things to be happy? The very nature of what Jasmine did (and, I do realise that this is what makes it completely impossible on a human level: there absolutely needs to be some kind of divine intervention) is to take people's free will and replace it with happiness. There is no way you can say that people need free will to survive. It has never been taken away before.

And about my thoughts and feelings in these posts: I cannot see your point. Yes, I have free will. So? My being able to come to this conclusion in no way would affect the situation we are discussing. If we were all Shiny Happy People, then I wouldn't need to come to any conclusion. There would be absolutely no use for free will. So, did you mean something else that I am missing?

Edit:

If you didn't have free will, you wouldn't be posting in this thread right now because you'd be too busy doing whatever was programmed into you by your dictator. I don't think the people who say "free will isn't great" actually understand the importance of free will. Without it you're just a fleshy computer, meaning that you're incapable of feeling anything anyway. You couldn't be happy. You could have happiness programmed into you, but that wouldn't be happiness, that would be another layer of the program.

There is no way to say that without free will we cannot feel. And what's the difference between feeling happy and being programed to feel happy? The emotion would be no less real to the person feeling it.

The part where there's no distinction between you and a laptop is the problem. A world with no art, no music, no writing, just people programmed to work and work, the highest form of slavery forced upon a people knowing no better. Without free will, we wouldn't exist. Only a shell would exist.

But all these things only matter because we have free will. Yes, art and music are wonderful, but without free will there would be no desire for them. They would not be missed, and we would be happier even without them. Yes, we may work as a slave, but not as a shell. We would still feel, and all we would feel would be joy. Working as a slave seems like the bad alternative now simply becase it would cause great mental and physical stress and pain. That wouldn't be the case in Jasmine's utopia.

[JCC]

There is no way to say that without free will we cannot feel. And what's the difference between feeling happy and being programed to feel happy? The emotion would be no less real to the person feeling it.
You would be happy living your life completely artificially, all semblance of self eradicated? You would be happy to force such bondage onto others and live in a fascist world?

But all these things only matter because we have free will. Yes, art and music are wonderful, but without free will there would be no desire for them. They would not be missed, and we would be happier even without them. Yes, we may work as a slave, but not as a shell. We would still feel, and all we would feel would be joy. Working as a slave seems like the bad alternative now simply becase it would cause great mental and physical stress and pain. That wouldn't be the case in Jasmine's utopia.
I honestly cannot believe that someone is trying to argue for worldwide death, and for everything we know to be replaced by the will of another. Was 1984 your instruction manual for life?

[Lindsey McDonald]

Nah, to be honest, I'm more playing devil's advocate in this topic. I definately see both sides of the argument though. That's why I found season 4 so interesting. It's just, if you think about it, worldwide death isn't as big a deal as it sounds, really.

And the 1984 analogy isn't relevant either. There free will was being supressed. It was very much still there. That's the difference with this sort of "divine intervention". On a human level it could never be achieved.

[JCC]

Equilibrium would have been a more accurate pop culture reference, but I'm guessing less people have seen that, so I didn't want to risk getting a "Huh?" :D

[Lindsey McDonald]

Just Wiki'd Equilibrium, and I see what you are saying. However, it is again the supression of free will. Free will still exists, and in that situation I 100% agree that it should never be supressed. They still can't really be compared though to what Jasmine was doing.

[InsaneMystic]

The part where there's no distinction between you and a laptop is the problem. A world with no art, no music, no writing, just people programmed to work and work, the highest form of slavery forced upon a people knowing no better. Without free will, we wouldn't exist. Only a shell would exist.
I don't see how art, music and writing would not exist. They exist in this world, which IMO has no free will. They would exist in Jasminotopia if Jasmine wanted us to paint, sing and write. (And we know she does want us to sing... you haven't forgotten the Angel & Connor duet, how could you?)

You would be happy living your life completely artificially, all semblance of self eradicated? You would be happy to force such bondage onto others and live in a fascist world?
Yes, we would be happy. You would be happy, too. That's what Jasmine's thrall is about, you know. You would be in no position to be unhappy about the cause of your happiness, even though you now, without Jasmine, claim your right for unhappiness.
(I should be writing flyers for that woman. :lmao:)

I honestly cannot believe that someone is trying to argue for worldwide death, and for everything we know to be replaced by the will of another. Was 1984 your instruction manual for life?
There would be less death than there already is, and dying would be less traumatic, so that's none too good an argument. And 1984 is not the best comparison either, as that state wasn't a happy utopia. A better, but still not fully valid, analogy might be "Brave new world", if I still remember that one correctly.

EDIT: YES, Equilibrium is an even better one!

[JCC]

I don't see how art, music and writing would not exist. They exist in this world, which IMO has no free will. They would exist in Jasminotopia if Jasmine wanted us to paint, sing and write. (And we know she does want us to sing... you haven't forgotten the Angel & Connor duet, how could you?)
They sang what was already there. Anything else would be channeling the whims of the dictator, nobody would create if there was no free will. And the world does have free will. People say things like "Oh, you can't have free will if everything is pre-determined by chemicals", but it's all pedantic rubbish. You don't know what complete mind slavery is like. And you never will because if it happened, you wouldn't be there. Without your thoughts, you're not there.


Yes, we would be happy. You would be happy, too. That's what Jasmine's thrall is about, you know. You would be in no position to be unhappy about the cause of your happiness, even though you now, without Jasmine, claim your right for unhappiness.
(I should be writing flyers for that woman. :lmao:)
You can't be happy if the happiness is artificial. It's like saying that people on heroin are inherently happy people. Also, I'd still like to point out that no thought = no person. Just slaves.

There would be less death than there already is, and dying would be less traumatic, so that's none too good an argument.
I didn't mean physical death. I meant death of the mind, you wouldn't be in there any more.

[InsaneMystic]

They sang what was already there. Anything else would be channeling the whims of the dictator, nobody would create if there was no free will. And the world does have free will. People say things like "Oh, you can't have free will if everything is pre-determined by chemicals", but it's all pedantic rubbish. You don't know what complete mind slavery is like. And you never will because if it happened, you wouldn't be there. Without your thoughts, you're not there.
Well, they were "creative" enough to change "Mandy" into "Jasmine"... :wink:
And while probably the art of Jasminotopia would be heavy on fluffy bunnies, kittens and rainbows, who's to say that's not art? Art is expression of emotion. If the only emotion is happiness, all art becomes similar, but it's still art.

I happen to be an artist myself, and I'd be happy to trade my need to draw expressions of pain, innuendo and misery against the ability to just keep drawing fluffy bunnies, kittens and rainbows for the rest of my life - even if there's more variety in the tortured art, I'd feel better with the invariable idyllics.

And as I said: I don't know and can never know whether any thought "in my head" is mine, so that argument falls flat. If the thoughts in my head are those of a dictator, that neither proves nor disproves my existence.

In fact, you don't know whether you're not, right at this moment, a complete mind slave of some entity (likely not Jasmine, however, since you don't come across as Shiny and Happy :biggrin: ) making you believe to be a BB poster nicknamed "JCC".

You can't be happy if the happiness is artificial. It's like saying that people on heroin are inherently happy people.
While their fix lasts, yes, I'd definitely call heroiniacs happy people. The only reason (I admit it's a pretty big one) you can't rate them as inherently happy is that they can't be kept on the stuff all the time, have to go out of their way to get more, and it ruins their bodies and their non-fixed mind. None of that applies with Jasmine-style projected happiness.

I didn't mean physical death. I meant death of the mind, you wouldn't be in there any more.
I still don't see a convincing reason why "the mind dying" should be rated as an inherently bad thing. Even if you leave aside that I don't know whether I'm "in there" right now at the moment, I wouldn't mind "not being in there" if I got jasmined, since there'd be no one there doing the discomforted minding.

Also, I'd still like to point out that no thought = no person. Just slaves.
So it's back to the basic question the showdown between Angel and Jasmine was about: Would you prefer to be an unhappy person or a happy slave?
I know my answer, and I know it doesn't match yours. That's ok.

[HyenaDemon]

Well that's a bit of a cop out, no? You could apply that argument to any level of being, and say that Jasmine herself was designed to be able to control us, and her not doing so is her going against her nature. The very fact that she is able to do it shows that we (as a quasi-ficticious people in the boundaries of the program, at least), are designed to be controlled and overruled.

How do we know that she was specifically asigned, or naturally born with these powers? Jasmine is a goddess. This means she has a high magic base. For all we know, she could just basically do anything she wanted, and she just chose to use her powers specifically to project herself as one being that everyone can affiliate with, use some kind of spell to relieve any negative emotions, etc. As a power that be... was.. is... bwis, she's not supposed to interfere with another person's free will.

Also, just because we are vulnerable to this, does not mean that we're designed to be controlled. There could be many reasons why we were suseptible to this "charm". Maybe, because we, as people (in Angelverse) might need some temporary relief every now and then, as opposed to permanent. Just like our negative emotions. Just because we have them, doesn't mean we use them for their designated purpose. And just because we don't always use them for what they're meant for, doesn't mean that we don't need them or are better off without them.


Like I said in my previous post, in this situation life and death as concepts would have to be re-examined. Death is only a problem to those left alive, especially in the Buffyverse where there are very established heavens and hells. Now, if someone killed everyone in the Buffyverse before Jasmine took over, that would be ambiguous, as a lot of people would suffer. Afterwards - not a problem, as they would all (eventually) go to paradise. In the real world, where we don't know for sure the existance of any kind of afterlife, the only effect of death we can possibly judge is on the living. In that regard we are hugely biased and cannot really look at the matter objectively. If everybody died, would it really be so bad? We can't really know. If the certainty was that everyboy was eternaly happy (paradise or Jasmine's reign), then it's a perfectly viable alternative.

Not if it causes problems. It's pretty complicated, but eventually, a lot of problems would be caused. It's just not healthy being happy/at peace all of the time. It's our negative emotions that motivate us to, not only take care of other people (which would not matter in world with no free will, true), but to take care of ourselves. There's limited physical activity (building citadels for Jasmine isn't necessarily enough), there's very limited mental activity, and there's another issue I'm gonna tackle at the end of this post.


Again, I say that in the very act of her interfering with this "nature", she exposes it's unreliability. Why is it such a violation? In the Buffyverse, it will have been the PTB that constructed it in the first place. We know they, and The First guide it. Jasmine is effectively removing the Evil component of this guidance. Is she perfecting nature by doing this? Or is evil something that is important to humanity?

For one, she is not exactly removing evil, she is merely surpressing it. Even if Fred had not accidentally broke the spell on her, and thus, later breaking everyone's spell, there are clearly many ways things could go wrong. Remember that guy in the beginning of Shiny Happy People? He totally flipped out and called her a monster. No blood touched his. Or as far as we know.

Here's an interesting, yet kinda awkward point: how would Jasmine's influence effect sexuality? Would someone have sexual thoughts, or even get an erection while under her influence? I hope so, because there wouldn't be a second generation. Or, including the people pregnant before Jasmine, a third.

[InsaneMystic]

Remember that guy in the beginning of Shiny Happy People? He totally flipped out and called her a monster. No blood touched his. Or as far as we know.
See my post in the other thread for that one...

Here's an interesting, yet kinda awkward point: how would Jasmine's influence effect sexuality? Would someone have sexual thoughts, or even get an erection while under her influence? I hope so, because there wouldn't be a second generation. Or, including the people pregnant before Jasmine, a third.
I don't see Jasmine objecting to sexuality? It depend on whether you consider sex to be something promoting happiness, or obstructing it. (I leave that to you to decide :) ).
I presume certain uhm likings (no need to go into detail as this is a family friendly board after all :wink:) would die out in no time, but I don't see Jasminotopia as free of merry cuddly daisy sex, at all... quite possibly to the contrary, the Eternal Summer of Love. :biggrin:

[HyenaDemon]

I dunno, I think that since all everyone seemed to talk about, was Jamine. Or, when they weren't talking about Jasmine, they were talking about killing people for not worshipping Jasmine. So, it seems that the only way for people to have sex is:

1) If how much one talks about Jasmine is what turns people on

or

2) If they have sex with Jasmine. It'd take pretty long to repopulate the second generation at a rate of once/twice per nine months, wouldn't it?

Then again, we've only witnessed this utopia for 5 episodes.

As for the guy who, turns out, DID get infected with blood: it's still pretty easy for the spell to break then. It happened twice the first day that she was born. And when Jasmine's hold on those people break, crap will hit the fan and she'll "request" that they go after them. Or use their bodies in the process. So it's not really much of a utopia if hell breaks loose everytime someone's spell is broken.

[Lindsey McDonald]

I dunno, I think that since all everyone seemed to talk about, was Jamine. Or, when they weren't talking about Jasmine, they were talking about killing people for not worshipping Jasmine. So, it seems that the only way for people to have sex is:

1) If how much one talks about Jasmine is what turns people on

or

2) If they have sex with Jasmine. It'd take pretty long to repopulate the second generation at a rate of once/twice per nine months, wouldn't it?

Then again, we've only witnessed this utopia for 5 episodes.

As for the guy who, turns out, DID get infected with blood: it's still pretty easy for the spell to break then. It happened twice the first day that she was born. And when Jasmine's hold on those people break, crap will hit the fan and she'll "request" that they go after them. Or use their bodies in the process. So it's not really much of a utopia if hell breaks loose everytime someone's spell is broken.

I'm sure if Jasmine wanted a second generation, all she would have to do is send out the thought. People would be only too happy to oblige!

The point about the fragility of the utopia is valid, and it could cause serious problems (as indeed it did in Angel). However, once established, no-one would try to hurt Jasmine and they could be warned not to touch her blood. Also, you say that all hell would break loose, but that wouldn't be the case in the people's minds. They would be just as happy hunting down the rebels as they would be, say, making another generation! :biggrin:

[randiann]

Would sex with Jasmine break the spell though, as it is still exchanging bodliy fluids? Just a thought....

Also (ignoring the big debate on free will) I stumbled on a big link between Jasmine and the First, thus sealing in my mind that she is evil
Amends/the First - Buffy-Boards (http://www.buffy-boards.com/showthread.php?p=524146#post524146)
anone else have any thoughts on that one? I'd thought I'd post it here too because of its relevance

[LittleMissLikesToFight]

I think the Glory argument doesn't stand well, at least to me, because Glory was much more selfish about all of it. But Jasmine's motives weren't selfish, at least not totally. I mean, yes, she wanted to be praised, but she really did want to bring peace to the world.

Interesting how the ideal of world peace still comes with a price and still is not a perfect world, as there must be sacrifice for it.

I guess in a way then, i don't see Jasmine as a baddie. Maybe it proves there can't be world peace without some sort of...consequence. I found the whole idea so intriguing.

[Veyron]

I don't think that being an almost mindless zombie for the sake of world peace is a fair trade, I'm glad that Jasmine got hers from a very unsuspected source in Connor.

Free will and the right to choose is what makes us individuals and if as humans we want to wipe each other out then so-be-it. Obviously I'm not advocating wiping out the human race even though certain portions of the planet seem hell bent on just that.

Okay, I don't want to start a flame war here or get slagged off as being racist or anything else but -

has anyone noticed that in the Star Trek universe there are no people from the Middle Eastern countries like Iran or Iraq or anywhere in that region? I read someplace once that Gene Roddenbury gave a reason for this but can I heck as like find it again.

[scobro]

Free will is
only a myth! If you think your will is free and you have a choice over your life you are mistaken. The question is to what degree are these owned. We have freedom of choice, but that does not mean we have free will. Alas, I shant go into a debate though. Jasmine was right. Angel was wrong.

[LittleMissLikesToFight]

Aslo, think of what Skip said, about people just kind of following a path they were purposefully set on. Say that were true, that our destiny is in fact that, with no way to avoid it, and no choice in the matter? then we already have no free will.

[scobro]

Aslo, think of what Skip said, about people just kind of following a path they were purposefully set on. Say that were true, that our destiny is in fact that, with no way to avoid it, and no choice in the matter? then we already have no free will.

We have choices, but the choices we make only affects how fast or slow we move towards our ultimate destination and where we were supposed to be. You can swim against current all you like, but sooner or later you will tire and the river will take you where you were meant to be.

[Lindsey McDonald]

Some people are missing the point here a little. The trade off isn't free will for world peace. It's free will for complete happiness. World peace is a symptom of that, not the cause.

[LittleMissLikesToFight]

i dunno. i mean, if you aren't aware of the fact that you have no free will, then i guess its the whole ignorance is bliss thing... bliss indeed lol. so i guess it wasn't that terrible because people didn't even know enough to struggle against it, they weren't even aware of what was happening to them... I'm not saying its right but i can understand the point of view that maybe it'd be ok in some way.

[Lindsey McDonald]

i dunno. i mean, if you aren't aware of the fact that you have no free will, then i guess its the whole ignorance is bliss thing... bliss indeed lol. so i guess it wasn't that terrible because people didn't even know enough to struggle against it, they weren't even aware of what was happening to them... I'm not saying its right but i can understand the point of view that maybe it'd be ok in some way.

Exactly. All the negatives of the "Ignorance is Bliss" scenario are stripped away leaving...well, bliss.

[scobro]

They were even happy when they were being eaten. :)

[Lindsey McDonald]

They were even happy when they were being eaten. :)

It's the only way to go! In naked bliss!

[scobro]

"in naked bliss..."
Who is Bliss?