Shit. I've had to split my comment into three parts because of the character limit! I got really, really excited by your meta, apparently.
Oh my God, yay! I've been waiting for somebody to do a Klaus/Hayley parallels post. There's so much going on there... and here. Yes. Perfect.
from what we can tell, it’s like what a lay person like myself would think of as a dominant trait
Trololololol. I'm sure you come across odd clerical type with a rudimentary grasp of biology, actually. ;D
(Responsible, in the ‘verse’s logic, is not the same thing as culpable. Accidents, clear-cut self-defense, and accidents occurring in the course of self-defensive actions have caused activation.)
Yikes. I'm not sure about this?
I mean, I obviously agree with you to the extent that, of course 'responsibility' is not the same as 'culpability' and there is a clear in-'verse distinction between the two; a distinction that I'm happy with. However, I do think people are culpable for committing manslaughter, particularly in this case, given that you've already described the demographic in question as one that predisposed towards violence. Of course -- and this goes without saying -- those concerned are nowhere near as culpable as individuals who have chosen to commit murder. Obviously I agree that Tyler is nowhere even near as culpable for the events that triggered the Lockwood curse as say, Hayley is, for calmly orchestrating a premeditated massacre that was predicated on gaining people's trust over a long period of time and then selling them out to find information. Like. Yeah, I completely agree with you in saying that the actions of Tyler aren't even a fraction of a percentage as wrong as the actions Hayley, in the context of their individual circumstances. And there's also the fact that Tyler and Mason are rendered even less culpable because their actions were triggered, in some senses, by Katherine's master plan. Nevertheless, I think it's dangerous to say that people who kill by accident, or people who kill in self-defence, are just not culpable full stop. They patently are. Nobody forced them into responding with fatal violence, you know?***
*** Obvs. there are other ways in which you can commit manslaughter. I think people are culpable in all cases. If I accidentally poison someone, then I deserve to be both blamed and punished for my negligence, in my opinion. The same goes if... I don't know... I'm running really fast and I can't stop in time and then, without meaning to, I knock into someone and they fall out of a window to their doom. Lmao. xD
Trololololol. I'm sure you come across odd clerical type with a rudimentary grasp of biology, actually. ;D
COLLOQUIALLY, OKAY.
Hayley is, for calmly orchestrating a premeditated massacre that was predicated on gaining people's trust over a long period of time and then selling them out to find information.
Sure, but that's not what triggered her curse. Unless she was lying to Tyler, which in retrospect she might well have been, it really was an accident. She was taking a dangerous risk going boating for which she is culpable, but no more of a risk than, say, Richard was being violent with a little kid.
Which there is some canonical support for this, though it comes from another unreliable narrator, when Mason gives Tyler the lecture about "no accidents." Like, if Tyler had ASKED Mason to snap Matt's and Sarah's necks but he didn't actually kill them with his own two hands, I don't think that would have triggered the curse even though it would have been volitional. Whereas simply pushing away someone who's coming at you with a knife, as Tyler did to Sarah, is a conscious choice to deescalate the situation that just didn't work out for Tyler. He wasn't guilty of anything except having something Katherine Pierce wanted.
Hahaha. Okay, okay. My bad. The way you put it just made me trolololol.
She was taking a dangerous risk going boating for which she is culpable, but no more of a risk than, say, Richard was being violent with a little kid.
Shit. Sorry, I expressed myself really badly. I didn't mean that Hayley was culpable for the events that led to her turning. In fact, we don't even know for sure that she had access to any information about the werewolf gene, so we don't even know that she was culpable for taking a risk by going boating. (It goes without saying that going boating in itself, whatever the risk, bears little similarity to being violent with a little kid, which is manifestly a bad, bad thing.)
I only meant to use Hayley's execution of the massacre to illustrate that there are things that characters do that are far, far worse than manslaughter.
Like, if Tyler had ASKED Mason to snap Matt's and Sarah's necks but he didn't actually kill them with his own two hands, I don't think that would have triggered the curse even though it would have been volitional.
Yeah. I get the same impression from what I know of canon. I don't think it would have triggered the curse. However, I would imagine, just... in terms of probability, that one is much more likely to be culpable in a murder that one didn't directly commit (by one's own hands, you know) than NOT be culpable in a death (a kind manslaughter affair, lulz) that one did commit.
He wasn't guilty of anything except having something Katherine Pierce wanted.
Yeah ITA. It was clearly an accident and I don't think it's fair to blame him for Sarah's death, no arguments there, though obvs he could have dealt with it in a way that didn't trigger the curse.
Of course know that both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter trigger the curse, and one is clearly worse than the other. But I don't think we can extrapolate from that that all werewolves had beginnings as ~innocent as Mason's or Tyler's. Not that I'm fully comfortable calling Mason's beginnings 'innocent' without slapping a great big asterisk next to it, the circumstances of that dude's death arose from Mason's propensity for violence.
I don't think we can extrapolate from that that all werewolves had beginnings as ~innocent as Mason's or Tyler's.
I wouldn't say that either. I just wanted to point out that this is possible, because I think the usual inclination at hearing this mythology would be to assume the curse had something to do with intent, which it clearly doesn't. I love that the TVD 'verse isn't fair, obviously.
Oh my God, yay! I've been waiting for somebody to do a Klaus/Hayley parallels post. There's so much going on there... and here. Yes. Perfect.
from what we can tell, it’s like what a lay person like myself would think of as a dominant trait
Trololololol. I'm sure you come across odd clerical type with a rudimentary grasp of biology, actually. ;D
(Responsible, in the ‘verse’s logic, is not the same thing as culpable. Accidents, clear-cut self-defense, and accidents occurring in the course of self-defensive actions have caused activation.)
Yikes. I'm not sure about this?
I mean, I obviously agree with you to the extent that, of course 'responsibility' is not the same as 'culpability' and there is a clear in-'verse distinction between the two; a distinction that I'm happy with. However, I do think people are culpable for committing manslaughter, particularly in this case, given that you've already described the demographic in question as one that predisposed towards violence. Of course -- and this goes without saying -- those concerned are nowhere near as culpable as individuals who have chosen to commit murder. Obviously I agree that Tyler is nowhere even near as culpable for the events that triggered the Lockwood curse as say, Hayley is, for calmly orchestrating a premeditated massacre that was predicated on gaining people's trust over a long period of time and then selling them out to find information. Like. Yeah, I completely agree with you in saying that the actions of Tyler aren't even a fraction of a percentage as wrong as the actions Hayley, in the context of their individual circumstances. And there's also the fact that Tyler and Mason are rendered even less culpable because their actions were triggered, in some senses, by Katherine's master plan. Nevertheless, I think it's dangerous to say that people who kill by accident, or people who kill in self-defence, are just not culpable full stop. They patently are. Nobody forced them into responding with fatal violence, you know?***
*** Obvs. there are other ways in which you can commit manslaughter. I think people are culpable in all cases. If I accidentally poison someone, then I deserve to be both blamed and punished for my negligence, in my opinion. The same goes if... I don't know... I'm running really fast and I can't stop in time and then, without meaning to, I knock into someone and they fall out of a window to their doom. Lmao. xD
Reply
COLLOQUIALLY, OKAY.
Hayley is, for calmly orchestrating a premeditated massacre that was predicated on gaining people's trust over a long period of time and then selling them out to find information.
Sure, but that's not what triggered her curse. Unless she was lying to Tyler, which in retrospect she might well have been, it really was an accident. She was taking a dangerous risk going boating for which she is culpable, but no more of a risk than, say, Richard was being violent with a little kid.
Which there is some canonical support for this, though it comes from another unreliable narrator, when Mason gives Tyler the lecture about "no accidents." Like, if Tyler had ASKED Mason to snap Matt's and Sarah's necks but he didn't actually kill them with his own two hands, I don't think that would have triggered the curse even though it would have been volitional. Whereas simply pushing away someone who's coming at you with a knife, as Tyler did to Sarah, is a conscious choice to deescalate the situation that just didn't work out for Tyler. He wasn't guilty of anything except having something Katherine Pierce wanted.
Reply
Hahaha. Okay, okay. My bad. The way you put it just made me trolololol.
She was taking a dangerous risk going boating for which she is culpable, but no more of a risk than, say, Richard was being violent with a little kid.
Shit. Sorry, I expressed myself really badly. I didn't mean that Hayley was culpable for the events that led to her turning. In fact, we don't even know for sure that she had access to any information about the werewolf gene, so we don't even know that she was culpable for taking a risk by going boating. (It goes without saying that going boating in itself, whatever the risk, bears little similarity to being violent with a little kid, which is manifestly a bad, bad thing.)
I only meant to use Hayley's execution of the massacre to illustrate that there are things that characters do that are far, far worse than manslaughter.
Like, if Tyler had ASKED Mason to snap Matt's and Sarah's necks but he didn't actually kill them with his own two hands, I don't think that would have triggered the curse even though it would have been volitional.
Yeah. I get the same impression from what I know of canon. I don't think it would have triggered the curse. However, I would imagine, just... in terms of probability, that one is much more likely to be culpable in a murder that one didn't directly commit (by one's own hands, you know) than NOT be culpable in a death (a kind manslaughter affair, lulz) that one did commit.
He wasn't guilty of anything except having something Katherine Pierce wanted.
Yeah ITA. It was clearly an accident and I don't think it's fair to blame him for Sarah's death, no arguments there, though obvs he could have dealt with it in a way that didn't trigger the curse.
Of course know that both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter trigger the curse, and one is clearly worse than the other. But I don't think we can extrapolate from that that all werewolves had beginnings as ~innocent as Mason's or Tyler's. Not that I'm fully comfortable calling Mason's beginnings 'innocent' without slapping a great big asterisk next to it, the circumstances of that dude's death arose from Mason's propensity for violence.
Reply
I wouldn't say that either. I just wanted to point out that this is possible, because I think the usual inclination at hearing this mythology would be to assume the curse had something to do with intent, which it clearly doesn't. I love that the TVD 'verse isn't fair, obviously.
Reply
Leave a comment