It goes back to the post-apocalyptic thing. All of these things are happening like 30 days after a genocide the likes of which we can’t even conceptualize. It’s hard to imagine that any of these people are really thinking straight. I think it’s far less believable that any one of them would sit down for a civilized conversation. Again, I don’t think it’s a liberal vs. conservative thing — I think it’s a trying to survive extinction thing.

And if you want someone to root for. Follow Helo.

Anyway, Tom, you’re proving my point. Whether or not a robot is “torture-able,” the information you get out of them through torture is likely to be false. If they do feel and are in great pain, they’ll say anything to make the pain stop (like humans do), and, if they’re just pretending to feel pain, then the torture is useless, anyway. So why even do it? (In my book “revenge” is not an acceptable answer.)

Even further — his torturers could threaten to kill Spot unless Data gives them information. He could simulate a grovelling response for a sufficient amount of time and then tell them some creative lie that leads them in the wrong direction. But, pre-chip, he won’t (and can’t) feel anything if they actually kill Spot.

That being said, I did read the Mistborn trilogy. It sounds like it handles some of the same themes of politics in a post-apocalyptic situation (or I suppose possibly just apocalpytic in Mistborn’s case) and does so with a better sense of humor than BSG. One thing I have noticed in several post-apocalyptic books and movies is that the author basically mimics the fall of the Soviet Union in their work. In order to maintain stability, the government has to be come autocratic. Democracy just doesn’t work, because the people don’t actually want a say in how things work, they just want them TO work. Russia has NEVER had a democracy. It obviously didn’t know what to do with one when it got it.

I don’t know if that would necessarily be the case if, for example, disaster struck the US. How likely is the average Joe going to be to sit idly by while some guy or gal with a few good ideas decides they have to be in charge indefinitely? With the shadow of George Washington hanging over them, who would dare to not relinquish control of their office? (And they shouldn’t get Putin’s option of just taking the other high office in the government.)

I don’t know, personally, but I think it would make an interesting exploration.

And further — they ARE robots. I think the writers enjoyed that dichotomy. Ask yourself — would anyone in the Star Trek universe feel guilty for torturing a Borg? Probably not because they all share the same group-think so, in effect, they’re all guilty or, at the very least, silent co-conspirators. For all anyone knows at this point of the series, the Cylon-hybrids are simply programmed to outwardly simulate a pain response to make the humans divide themselves in this kind of petty argument while a baseship catches up to finish the job.

BSG is not, nor do I suspect it was intended to ever be, a story that endorsed the conservative viewpoint. If it was, well, then, it would’ve started with the Colonials invading Cylon space because they were out there doing evil things and we can prove it! Your criticisms are missing a key, single point: all the things you say the characters are doing wrong WERE IN FACT WRONG. The theme of BSG is “humans are fallible creatures who will frak up perfectly well on their own.” Not “disobeying the rule of law is good.”

If you continue watching the show, you will in fact find out that the characters, for various reasons, do find redemption (of a sort; Galactica DOES have a rather downbeat world view) and realize they are making mistakes. In fact, you are not very many episodes away from the turning point for at least one major character.

I realize that, inherently, commenting on something as you watch it is going to lead to these sort of moments. But without spoiling the show-yeah, you’re a little off base on what it’s ultimately about.