Originally Posted by Orri:
“You miss the point, the daughter had her memory preserved because she was incurable. The fact that after so many years she had not matured, either mentally or (pseudo)physically seems to edge things towards the idea that rather than some method of saving her life what has been done is a form of suspended animation. If she was ever transferred to a new organic body, or even a mechanical extension so she could interact with the real world, or perhaps now that there are other mind imprints she can interact with she might develop. However that would require an alteration of the programming which seems more focussed on preserving her as near as she was at the point she was transfered. All of that is covered in the simple decision to have her as a child, rather than a young adult or a grown woman. It's a form of shorthand that lets the writer get on with the show rather than stop the plot for a pointless bit of exposition. It was also briefly covered when one of the characters dies an a cruder version of the process is shown.”
I understand that she was preserved because she was incurable and it was a form of suspended animation. Perhaps I need to watch the episode again though because I don't remember there ever being any mention of reanimating her, but rather simply allowing her to live peacefully in the program. She was programmed as a little girl because that's the way she had died, and that's how the grandfather remembered her. She could easily have been a young adult however, without any extra exposition because the exposition didn't really go beyond that the library was built for the daughter of the grandfather and she was placed in the main core. I really don't see how the decision to make her a child was any more simple than one to make her an adult, I mean, aside from as a creative allusion to another work.
Originally Posted by Orri:
“Thanks for pointing out that you are aware of the various "Agenda" threads in the past, which would indicate that you've been following this group for some time, and that your first post in your current incarnation may not have been your first post here.
And for what it's worth a "Gay Agenda" where it entails giving a high profile to gay issues and raising gay awareness sometimes to the detriment of the stories is not advocating breaking the law.
The word Paedophilia may have roots in classical language, but it's meaning involves the having sexual intercourse with meaning of the word love, rather than more innocent and acceptable versions as far as children are concerned.
Given that children of the age being included in the show exist in real life, it's a bit strange that up until recently they didn't exist in Dr Who, especially as they are some of the target audience of the show.”
Nope. First incarnation. Thing is, you don't have to be registered to view threads. On the subject of children being the target audience of Doctor who, this is partly why I choose to focus on Moffat, because his episodes generally aren't targeted toward children, so it's partly strange that if he was returning to the creepy roots of Doctor Who that he wouldn't also avoid using children in such episodes, or at least some of them. So far he's avoiding using children in one.
As far as paedophilia goes, it does not involve sexual activity, not unless you use it in such a sense, and perpetuate that faux meaning. As I said, -Philia is from the Greek word Philia which is specifically brotherly love, not Eros, which would be sexual. The inclusion of sexual meaning into paedophilia is something that has been encouraged by the taboids, so now a days it can be used in both senses, even though it shouldn't. If you wanted to talk about the unhealthy obsession with children, you would talk about paedomania, but only pedants and people in the psychiatry field would probably even know that.
Again, I digress because the etymology of words is not the point of this thread.
”
)
