Not sure what you are saying here, if you are saying that she wasnt surpressing emotional reactions, using possible sentients as tool's fits into an unemotional reaction to me. Plus again I say it was a flawed decision because had they not somehow escaped getting thier memorys wiped Batou, and maybe her would be dead. Plus they could have possibley helped in other ways, had she not been to guarded to understand the potential in having personality and emotion. And the bit about the Tachi's dad not being free like section 9 would make most people empathetic, perhaps finding a way that the bond with the Tachi's may make him more loyal. *(when dealing with people, saying NO without reason, or just reasons like, the state says NO, dont work. you have to have reasons for the person to submit, or they will constantly rebel. )*The Tachi dad guy will most likely find another way out soon, but had she or his "handlers" reacted with some empathy and worked with him to give him a reason to stay he may, such as giving him a role in working with the Tachi's.
Tonks_kittygoth, I intended the line of questioning to suggest that Section Nine members, the Tachikomas, and the Tachikomas' "father" are all agents of-- indeed,
instruments of-- the State. I think the Major's comment was simply an ironic way of noting that serving the State, being bound to it by contract or other obligation, pretty much stinks at times.
[EDIT: I was implying something else, too. I think someone could make the case that Section Nine allows for the Tachikomas' feelings of loyalty (towards Batou, for example) and their individuality in
2nd Gig because these things are assets to Section Nine, as we saw in the first season-- and anything that's an asset to Section Nine is something of use to the State. I'm not sure it's exactly or purely a sentimental thing; it's about use and value.
But anything that's a liability to the State is, well, unacceptable to the State. So some content gets edited.
Notice what I've said directly: That the individual identity and feelings of a Tachikoma, whatever the basis or origins, are only permitted to the extent that these things serve the ends of Section Nine, and by extension the ends of the State. EDIT ENDS]
And I think the Tachikomas' creator was as concerned about intellectual property rights and relatively naive notions of pure research and sharing information with the scientific community as he was with other things. (When you sign a contract and work for a given State, you gain some things, and lose others-- rights to your own research and some degree of freedom being among the things you lose.) He wanted to leave Japan for a country that would acknowledge individual achievement, for a nation where his ideas would become part of a broader knowledge-base. But the Japanese government wasn't about to let that happen. Even if the government had allowed him to work on or with the Tachikomas, he would've been under state contract-- and what he did would be classified. So I doubt that such an arrangement would've resolved the situation to his and his employers' satisfaction.
It's pretty telling that the Tachikoma is holding the man's hand, and the man has to mention that his research will spread via the Net someday...
To paraphrase the conversation:
"I don't want to forget you, Daddy. I don't
want the State to erase my memories of you."
"Don't worry, son/daughter. My work will be widely available online someday. Soon everyone will appreciate the value of my research..."
Ah, family values. Kinda chokes you up.
I imagine that the relationship/conflict between working for a government (as the military unit with which Kuze served did, and as Section Nine and the Tachikomas do) and making autonomous decisions will come up again in the series...
In short, I was suggesting we look at the broader questions the episode with the Tachikomas and their "dad" implied, and the parallels and shared thematic concerns that that particular episode has with the rest of the series.
It's not quite so off-topic as it might at first seem...
when dealing with people, saying NO without reason, or just reasons like, the state says NO, dont work. you have to have reasons for the person to submit, or they will constantly rebel.
I'd propose there's a difference between someone who simply doesn't like being told what to do and someone who enters a contract or other legally binding arrangement with a corporation or state, benefits from the arrangement, but decides to break the conditions of the contract or agreement-- thus putting state or corporate secrets at risk.
(I'm not talking about whistle-blowers, and let's note that the scientist in the show wasn't going to blow the whistle on anyone. And we're not talking about a simple labor dispute, or someone deciding to quit a job that wouldn't impact national security. The man wanted to defect or seek political asylum-- and given the relationship between Japan and the rest of the world in the show, such a defection would put Japanese state secrets at risk and potentially shift the balance of power. And we're told that the man's research
belonged to the State, under conditions and contracts to which the man agreed. So it's not a matter of saying, "Be free, little bird. Fly! Fly!" You sign the documents or join the organization, you take the State's or the company's money, and you know what the consequences will be if you break the terms. It's on the document you signed, or it's apparent from the agreement's nature. And the same is true of Section Nine's members. The Tachikomas are in a slightly different situation, in that they didn't choose to join up with the State... but they don't have legal rights in the same sense that the scientist and Section Nine members do. Again, the similarity is simply that they're not free in the same way a normal citizen is free. Batou, the Major, and the Tachikoma's dad all made the choice... But if a Tachikoma decided to leave, it wouldn't be imprisoned or otherwise punished as someone who broke a contract, it would be "switched off" like a machine-- because that's its legal status. And that wouldn't be the same as execution... as "execution" would imply that a Tachikoma's legal status was the same as a human's. But the Major's comment seemed to acknowledge that she views the Tachikomas as something like a human being... I think her attitude towards them has changed since first season. But still, she has to make sure that certain of their memories are purged-- for reasons that have been discussed on this forum. Duty, necessity, etc. Sometimes, as an operative of the State, you have to do stuff you don't like doing-- things viewers might not approve of.)
The writers must've loved working on that episode with the Tachikoma's dad. It had several levels of irony-- some of them at the dad's expense, some at the expense of Section Nine.
Again, In my Opinion, she could have also avoided deaths on both sides if she had backed off or set someone else in charge. I think that is what she is saying at the end by her tone of voice when she admits to B that she screwed up.
I don't think it would've matter who was leading the operation. The refugees would've opened fire anyway. As I've suggested, things are getting out of hand in the show. You have a tense situation, weapons floating around, and the potential for further escalation. And
if Kuze or the weapons had been on one of the boats, waiting might've been disastrous.
You could counter that the intel was wrong, and the boats were of no actual value. And you'd be correct-- but knowing that at the time would be impossible. So the Major made a command decision. It was the wrong one, and she lost someone under her command. As the unit's leader, she has to take responsibility for the consequences of her decision. So when Batou tells her she made a bad call and someone died, all she can say is, "You're right."
(BTW, just a polite suggestion: If you're responding to more than one person's comments in a single post, you might want to mention who you're quoting when you quote someone. At least, you might want to do so on this sort of thread. Something more general, say a thread in which five people mention bands you like, I think it's cool to quote someone's post, say, "I like (or don't like) this band," then move on to someone else's post, quote it, and respond-- without attribution. But when this is done in a more detailed discussion, things can get kind of weird for the reader. I saw my words, douyang's words, and Lightice's words quoted without attribution, and I was initially confused about your responses. I found myself wondering, "Did I write these words?" I was pretty sure that I hadn't. Then I scrolled up and realized that douyang or Lightice was the author of the quoted passage, that you were now responding to that person. But I later found myself being quoted again... As I've said, this is just a friendly suggestion. As this kind of thread gets longer and longer, it's beneficial to all parties for a poster to mention which person's comments the poster is responding to-- if the poster is responding to more than one person at a time.)
