Hee! Quibble away. I have to admit I often find it very hard to see Lex's POV. I really appreciate hearing your well articulated perspective. I do have a few quibbles with your quibbles, though. ;-)
I'm not sure Lex temporarily denying A.C. water constitutes torture so much as it does understandable caution ... I can't really see that Lex was all that terribly wrong to lock him up, if only as a prelude to calling in the authorities.
It's true that Lex was proven correct wrt his suspicions that A.C. could escape if given water. It's also true that Lex stated being called 'a tool' as motivation for his taunting A.C. I could concede your point of A.C.'s attempting to destroy Lex's property, however, I don't believe Lex had any intention of calling in the authorities. First, the best opportunity for calling in law enforcement would have been when A.C. was first hit with the dart at the lake and rendered unconcious. Second, the first thing we see once Lex has A.C. in his lab is a doctor withdrawing A.C.'s blood. At this point in the show, Lex had an already established history of incarcerating meta-humans against their will for the purpose of experimentation (Molly, Mxyzptlk, the goons in "Mortal"). Third, Lex's line of questioning once he had A.C. dehydrated and restrained in his lab had nothing to do with eco-terrorism. He specifically witheld a biological need to the point of causing pain and suffering with the goal of getting A.C. to reveal information (How does he swim so fast? Why does he need water so much?).
Lex did NOT torture Victor -- he saved Victor's life in the only way it was possible to save it ... he forcibly kept Victor from throwing that life away, but so would the U.S. legal system have done, if it had had the chance
Actually, Victor was already dead. Lex didn't notify the authorities that he had a 'dead' alive person in his custody. In fact, he hid that from them as a means to forcibly experiment on Victor. Once again he caused a person physical/psychological/emotional pain and suffering in pursuit of information.
I do not see examining the results of Duncan's treatments as evil; knowledge is never inherently evil
Good point. I suppose, one could even argue that he wanted to give Duncan's life meaning. I included it as a knee-jerk, I think. That moment in "Reunion" was spine-tingling creepy for me because it brought me to Lex's past actions wrt experimenting on people and although he hasn't used (to our knowledge) the information for ill purposes yet, it stands to reason that he will. But, you're right, he can't be held accountable for something he's likely to do, but hasn't yet done.
The only Amanda I can think of committed suicide
Doh! *smacks forehead* Yep, you're right. I was thinking of Amanda's fiance, Jude. Since "Zero" is ambiguous as to who exactly killed Jude, I probably shouldn't have used this as an example. (Especially since I typed the wrong victim!) I think Lex killed him, though.
Lex did not sabotage his relationship with Clark (if that's the one you're thinking of); Clark THREW THEIR RELATIONSHIP AWAY with his myriad lies and betrayals.
Actually, I was thinking of Lana. She could've genuinely loved him for himself if he hadn't contrived to (figuratively) capture her and then continued to manipulate her once he had. Now that you mention it, I think this does apply somewhat to Clark, too - with the advice about Lana, buying the farm, the CoCK, the football team sponsorship, and the "Mortal" set-up being cases in point. You obviously feel very strongly with the all caps, so I just want you to know that I don't mean to offend you with my perspective - it's just my perspective. I think both Clark and Lex are culpable for the state of their relationship. They've both been active participants in its downfall.
quibbles are fun :-)
I'm not sure Lex temporarily denying A.C. water constitutes torture so much as it does understandable caution ... I can't really see that Lex was all that terribly wrong to lock him up, if only as a prelude to calling in the authorities.
It's true that Lex was proven correct wrt his suspicions that A.C. could escape if given water. It's also true that Lex stated being called 'a tool' as motivation for his taunting A.C. I could concede your point of A.C.'s attempting to destroy Lex's property, however, I don't believe Lex had any intention of calling in the authorities. First, the best opportunity for calling in law enforcement would have been when A.C. was first hit with the dart at the lake and rendered unconcious. Second, the first thing we see once Lex has A.C. in his lab is a doctor withdrawing A.C.'s blood. At this point in the show, Lex had an already established history of incarcerating meta-humans against their will for the purpose of experimentation (Molly, Mxyzptlk, the goons in "Mortal"). Third, Lex's line of questioning once he had A.C. dehydrated and restrained in his lab had nothing to do with eco-terrorism. He specifically witheld a biological need to the point of causing pain and suffering with the goal of getting A.C. to reveal information (How does he swim so fast? Why does he need water so much?).
Lex did NOT torture Victor -- he saved Victor's life in the only way it was possible to save it ... he forcibly kept Victor from throwing that life away, but so would the U.S. legal system have done, if it had had the chance
Actually, Victor was already dead. Lex didn't notify the authorities that he had a 'dead' alive person in his custody. In fact, he hid that from them as a means to forcibly experiment on Victor. Once again he caused a person physical/psychological/emotional pain and suffering in pursuit of information.
I do not see examining the results of Duncan's treatments as evil; knowledge is never inherently evil
Good point. I suppose, one could even argue that he wanted to give Duncan's life meaning. I included it as a knee-jerk, I think. That moment in "Reunion" was spine-tingling creepy for me because it brought me to Lex's past actions wrt experimenting on people and although he hasn't used (to our knowledge) the information for ill purposes yet, it stands to reason that he will. But, you're right, he can't be held accountable for something he's likely to do, but hasn't yet done.
The only Amanda I can think of committed suicide
Doh! *smacks forehead* Yep, you're right. I was thinking of Amanda's fiance, Jude. Since "Zero" is ambiguous as to who exactly killed Jude, I probably shouldn't have used this as an example. (Especially since I typed the wrong victim!) I think Lex killed him, though.
Lex did not sabotage his relationship with Clark (if that's the one you're thinking of); Clark THREW THEIR RELATIONSHIP AWAY with his myriad lies and betrayals.
Actually, I was thinking of Lana. She could've genuinely loved him for himself if he hadn't contrived to (figuratively) capture her and then continued to manipulate her once he had. Now that you mention it, I think this does apply somewhat to Clark, too - with the advice about Lana, buying the farm, the CoCK, the football team sponsorship, and the "Mortal" set-up being cases in point. You obviously feel very strongly with the all caps, so I just want you to know that I don't mean to offend you with my perspective - it's just my perspective. I think both Clark and Lex are culpable for the state of their relationship. They've both been active participants in its downfall.