Why did The Doctor chastise Karl for kicking Tzim-Sha?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
In the Doctor Who episode "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" The Doctor removed
several DNA bombs from her companions and reinserted these into the data-gathering coil brought to Earth by Tzim-Sha (Tim Shaw).
The Doctor was not surprised when these found their way back into Tzim-Sha and seemed to understand he was connected to the coil.
Why then,
after Tzim-Sha had detonated the bombs, potentially killing him,
did The Doctor chastise Karl by saying "you had no right to do that!" for kicking him
off the crane? Surely he was as good as dead anyway? Although he appeared to teleport away before we saw him die, The Doctor had previously gone into great detail about the way DNA bombs worked and their deadly potential.
doctor-who
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
In the Doctor Who episode "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" The Doctor removed
several DNA bombs from her companions and reinserted these into the data-gathering coil brought to Earth by Tzim-Sha (Tim Shaw).
The Doctor was not surprised when these found their way back into Tzim-Sha and seemed to understand he was connected to the coil.
Why then,
after Tzim-Sha had detonated the bombs, potentially killing him,
did The Doctor chastise Karl by saying "you had no right to do that!" for kicking him
off the crane? Surely he was as good as dead anyway? Although he appeared to teleport away before we saw him die, The Doctor had previously gone into great detail about the way DNA bombs worked and their deadly potential.
doctor-who
1
Well arguably Tzim-Sha had killed himself, rather than the Doctor doing it. And I thought the "you had no right to do that" was directed at Tzim rather than Karl, though I could be mistaken.
â Jontia
10 hours ago
1
@Jontia True, but I struggled to get that accross in a punchy title. I explain in the post that Tim detonated the bombs. But he had already teleported before she made the comment and she turned to Karl when she said it
â Astralbee
10 hours ago
Good point. Although talking to (or at) characters that have just left is a fairly common TV/Film convention.
â Jontia
10 hours ago
@Sava (cc Astralbee) Making a post entirely spoilers is next to pointless because people have no way of knowing what the spoiler could contain and so will have to read it anyway. In the future can you try and make posts readable without having to see most of the content hidden behind spoiler markdown. I haven't seen the episode yet but I have tried to do this here.
â TheLethalCarrot
10 hours ago
"Never be cruel, and never be cowardly". That's the consistent promise among all the Doctor's Incarnations.
â tilley31
9 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
In the Doctor Who episode "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" The Doctor removed
several DNA bombs from her companions and reinserted these into the data-gathering coil brought to Earth by Tzim-Sha (Tim Shaw).
The Doctor was not surprised when these found their way back into Tzim-Sha and seemed to understand he was connected to the coil.
Why then,
after Tzim-Sha had detonated the bombs, potentially killing him,
did The Doctor chastise Karl by saying "you had no right to do that!" for kicking him
off the crane? Surely he was as good as dead anyway? Although he appeared to teleport away before we saw him die, The Doctor had previously gone into great detail about the way DNA bombs worked and their deadly potential.
doctor-who
In the Doctor Who episode "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" The Doctor removed
several DNA bombs from her companions and reinserted these into the data-gathering coil brought to Earth by Tzim-Sha (Tim Shaw).
The Doctor was not surprised when these found their way back into Tzim-Sha and seemed to understand he was connected to the coil.
Why then,
after Tzim-Sha had detonated the bombs, potentially killing him,
did The Doctor chastise Karl by saying "you had no right to do that!" for kicking him
off the crane? Surely he was as good as dead anyway? Although he appeared to teleport away before we saw him die, The Doctor had previously gone into great detail about the way DNA bombs worked and their deadly potential.
doctor-who
doctor-who
edited 10 hours ago
TheLethalCarrot
33.1k13185227
33.1k13185227
asked 11 hours ago
Astralbee
4547
4547
1
Well arguably Tzim-Sha had killed himself, rather than the Doctor doing it. And I thought the "you had no right to do that" was directed at Tzim rather than Karl, though I could be mistaken.
â Jontia
10 hours ago
1
@Jontia True, but I struggled to get that accross in a punchy title. I explain in the post that Tim detonated the bombs. But he had already teleported before she made the comment and she turned to Karl when she said it
â Astralbee
10 hours ago
Good point. Although talking to (or at) characters that have just left is a fairly common TV/Film convention.
â Jontia
10 hours ago
@Sava (cc Astralbee) Making a post entirely spoilers is next to pointless because people have no way of knowing what the spoiler could contain and so will have to read it anyway. In the future can you try and make posts readable without having to see most of the content hidden behind spoiler markdown. I haven't seen the episode yet but I have tried to do this here.
â TheLethalCarrot
10 hours ago
"Never be cruel, and never be cowardly". That's the consistent promise among all the Doctor's Incarnations.
â tilley31
9 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
Well arguably Tzim-Sha had killed himself, rather than the Doctor doing it. And I thought the "you had no right to do that" was directed at Tzim rather than Karl, though I could be mistaken.
â Jontia
10 hours ago
1
@Jontia True, but I struggled to get that accross in a punchy title. I explain in the post that Tim detonated the bombs. But he had already teleported before she made the comment and she turned to Karl when she said it
â Astralbee
10 hours ago
Good point. Although talking to (or at) characters that have just left is a fairly common TV/Film convention.
â Jontia
10 hours ago
@Sava (cc Astralbee) Making a post entirely spoilers is next to pointless because people have no way of knowing what the spoiler could contain and so will have to read it anyway. In the future can you try and make posts readable without having to see most of the content hidden behind spoiler markdown. I haven't seen the episode yet but I have tried to do this here.
â TheLethalCarrot
10 hours ago
"Never be cruel, and never be cowardly". That's the consistent promise among all the Doctor's Incarnations.
â tilley31
9 hours ago
1
1
Well arguably Tzim-Sha had killed himself, rather than the Doctor doing it. And I thought the "you had no right to do that" was directed at Tzim rather than Karl, though I could be mistaken.
â Jontia
10 hours ago
Well arguably Tzim-Sha had killed himself, rather than the Doctor doing it. And I thought the "you had no right to do that" was directed at Tzim rather than Karl, though I could be mistaken.
â Jontia
10 hours ago
1
1
@Jontia True, but I struggled to get that accross in a punchy title. I explain in the post that Tim detonated the bombs. But he had already teleported before she made the comment and she turned to Karl when she said it
â Astralbee
10 hours ago
@Jontia True, but I struggled to get that accross in a punchy title. I explain in the post that Tim detonated the bombs. But he had already teleported before she made the comment and she turned to Karl when she said it
â Astralbee
10 hours ago
Good point. Although talking to (or at) characters that have just left is a fairly common TV/Film convention.
â Jontia
10 hours ago
Good point. Although talking to (or at) characters that have just left is a fairly common TV/Film convention.
â Jontia
10 hours ago
@Sava (cc Astralbee) Making a post entirely spoilers is next to pointless because people have no way of knowing what the spoiler could contain and so will have to read it anyway. In the future can you try and make posts readable without having to see most of the content hidden behind spoiler markdown. I haven't seen the episode yet but I have tried to do this here.
â TheLethalCarrot
10 hours ago
@Sava (cc Astralbee) Making a post entirely spoilers is next to pointless because people have no way of knowing what the spoiler could contain and so will have to read it anyway. In the future can you try and make posts readable without having to see most of the content hidden behind spoiler markdown. I haven't seen the episode yet but I have tried to do this here.
â TheLethalCarrot
10 hours ago
"Never be cruel, and never be cowardly". That's the consistent promise among all the Doctor's Incarnations.
â tilley31
9 hours ago
"Never be cruel, and never be cowardly". That's the consistent promise among all the Doctor's Incarnations.
â tilley31
9 hours ago
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
The Doctor's comment to the alien Tim Shaw that it should return home (after having set off the bombs inside itself) would strongly suggest that with the appropriate medical treatment, that the DNA bombs shouldn't be fatal. Since it had no choice but to comply and had stopped actively trying to kill them, that was tantamount to admitting defeat.
Doctor: You got everything transferred to you including five tiny bombs. You had a choice. You did this to yourself.
[ALIEN SCREAMS]
Go home.
In essence, he was killing an enemy that had already surrendered.
The Doctor has always shown a perverse morality toward murderous aliens, giving them the choice to leave Earth rather than facing the consequences of their actions; tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Christmas_Invasion_(TV_story)
â Valorum
10 hours ago
1
It's no more perverse than allowing enemy soldiers (who had been murdering your soldiers on a routine basis) to go home when the war's over. The Doctor has consistently allowed opponents to live if they're willing to lay down arms and walk away. It's when s/he doesn't that they get scary.
â Keith Morrison
6 hours ago
2
It's only a rough analogy. And we're talking about The Doctor. The person who was faced with the "Would you kill Hitler as a baby?" decision with Davros and saved him. The person who let Bonnie get away with outright murder and terrorism because he thought the chance for peace was more important than vengeance, however justified.
â Keith Morrison
6 hours ago
2
I would not call this a "perverse" morality, I would call it a core element of the Doctor's character - perhaps the core element.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
2
@Valorum: The alternative is a cycle of retribution, which the Doctor has no desire to kick off.
â Kevin
4 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
It's similar to his reaction to Harriet Jones, British Prime Minister's (*) choice to destroy the Sycorax ship after The Doctor had gotten them to retreat. They'd already lost, in The Doctor's eyes, there was no need to kill them.
One could argue that there's no knowing if pushing Tim Shaw off the crane will result in his death (or at least any more than the DNA bombs will). Presumably, Tim Shaw will return to his planet on some sort of receiving platform, and whether he's on the ground or on the 47th floor of a building would not matter. He was falling as he teleported, but he'd only fallen a few yards or so - when he arrived at home, he'd probably arrive horizontal, but only with the kinetic energy of a very short fall, not a fatal one.
Still, She tells Karl From The Train off, more because at the very least it was a case of kicking Tim Shaw while he was down.
(*) Yes, we know who you are...
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Legal right
While the Doctor certainly disapproves of violence on moral grounds, when she said "you had no right to do that!", she may have also meant the legal right.
The Shadow Proclamation enforces interstellar law, including the rules by which technologically advanced societies may interact with primitive societies such as 21st-Century Earth. These strict regulations have been a recurring negotiating tool and/or legal impediment for The Doctor since their first mention in "Rose" (2005).
In "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" (2018), the Doctor may have been relying on this (or similar) interstellar law in her negotiation with the hostile alien. Karl's action, if in violation of legal protocol, may have opened the door to reprisals against Earth.
Interesting, but I think there's no way this is what she meant. Legal matters are the last thing the doctor cares about. They're boring to him/her. The doctor only brings them up when they win an argument or accomplish some direct purpose then and there. The doctor is very chaotic in nature (to steal D&D terms).
â Nacht
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
The Doctor shows a consistent abhorrence of violence which has become more marked over time. One could argue that the first Doctor didn't really show this very strongly, but it becomes a theme over time. KFTT's attack on a defeated foe is well out of bounds for the Doctor's ethos.
In addition, the Doctor does not like to have their plans disrupted, and KFTT's attack disrupted the plan.
1
The latter part of this doesn't address the question of right
â Valorum
5 hours ago
The question of the wording - her use of the word "right" - will presumably be unrolled over the course of the coming series. At the moment, I'm answering the question of why the Doctor chastised KFTT.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-4
down vote
She needs to check her Time Lord privilege. Karl was the intended victim of the horrible fate of eternal life on the cusp of death. He was the one with the right and he doesn't have have any idea who the Doctor is.
This is the same Doctor who watched Cassandra explode drowned millions of Racnoss babies and laughs as the Graff explodes from the bomb the Doctor planted on him.
That's all fine for the Time Lord Victorious but the "little people" better not take anything upon themselves.
New contributor
3
Welcome to SFF:SE. I'm afraid this rant doesn't answer the question asked. You might want to have a read of the tour and faq to get an idea we're about.
â Valorum
7 hours ago
I think it does. That line was the only thing i didn't like in the episode. I loved everything else. My point is that there is no reason other than the idea that Karl is not as worthy as she is as the Doctor to make these decisions. Think about the Orient Express episode. The Doctor has to make these decisions because no one else can. That's fine. But when someone does, the Doctor should understand.
â Paul
7 hours ago
1
I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question. You're answering an entirely new question of your own devising "What do you think about this thing that happened?"
â Valorum
6 hours ago
Calling the Doctor's long-established abhorrence of violent solutions an example of "privilege" suggests that you're new to the series. Go back and watch through the old episodes and get in-universe. I recommend starting with the first series and just watching all the way through.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
The Doctor's comment to the alien Tim Shaw that it should return home (after having set off the bombs inside itself) would strongly suggest that with the appropriate medical treatment, that the DNA bombs shouldn't be fatal. Since it had no choice but to comply and had stopped actively trying to kill them, that was tantamount to admitting defeat.
Doctor: You got everything transferred to you including five tiny bombs. You had a choice. You did this to yourself.
[ALIEN SCREAMS]
Go home.
In essence, he was killing an enemy that had already surrendered.
The Doctor has always shown a perverse morality toward murderous aliens, giving them the choice to leave Earth rather than facing the consequences of their actions; tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Christmas_Invasion_(TV_story)
â Valorum
10 hours ago
1
It's no more perverse than allowing enemy soldiers (who had been murdering your soldiers on a routine basis) to go home when the war's over. The Doctor has consistently allowed opponents to live if they're willing to lay down arms and walk away. It's when s/he doesn't that they get scary.
â Keith Morrison
6 hours ago
2
It's only a rough analogy. And we're talking about The Doctor. The person who was faced with the "Would you kill Hitler as a baby?" decision with Davros and saved him. The person who let Bonnie get away with outright murder and terrorism because he thought the chance for peace was more important than vengeance, however justified.
â Keith Morrison
6 hours ago
2
I would not call this a "perverse" morality, I would call it a core element of the Doctor's character - perhaps the core element.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
2
@Valorum: The alternative is a cycle of retribution, which the Doctor has no desire to kick off.
â Kevin
4 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
The Doctor's comment to the alien Tim Shaw that it should return home (after having set off the bombs inside itself) would strongly suggest that with the appropriate medical treatment, that the DNA bombs shouldn't be fatal. Since it had no choice but to comply and had stopped actively trying to kill them, that was tantamount to admitting defeat.
Doctor: You got everything transferred to you including five tiny bombs. You had a choice. You did this to yourself.
[ALIEN SCREAMS]
Go home.
In essence, he was killing an enemy that had already surrendered.
The Doctor has always shown a perverse morality toward murderous aliens, giving them the choice to leave Earth rather than facing the consequences of their actions; tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Christmas_Invasion_(TV_story)
â Valorum
10 hours ago
1
It's no more perverse than allowing enemy soldiers (who had been murdering your soldiers on a routine basis) to go home when the war's over. The Doctor has consistently allowed opponents to live if they're willing to lay down arms and walk away. It's when s/he doesn't that they get scary.
â Keith Morrison
6 hours ago
2
It's only a rough analogy. And we're talking about The Doctor. The person who was faced with the "Would you kill Hitler as a baby?" decision with Davros and saved him. The person who let Bonnie get away with outright murder and terrorism because he thought the chance for peace was more important than vengeance, however justified.
â Keith Morrison
6 hours ago
2
I would not call this a "perverse" morality, I would call it a core element of the Doctor's character - perhaps the core element.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
2
@Valorum: The alternative is a cycle of retribution, which the Doctor has no desire to kick off.
â Kevin
4 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
The Doctor's comment to the alien Tim Shaw that it should return home (after having set off the bombs inside itself) would strongly suggest that with the appropriate medical treatment, that the DNA bombs shouldn't be fatal. Since it had no choice but to comply and had stopped actively trying to kill them, that was tantamount to admitting defeat.
Doctor: You got everything transferred to you including five tiny bombs. You had a choice. You did this to yourself.
[ALIEN SCREAMS]
Go home.
In essence, he was killing an enemy that had already surrendered.
The Doctor's comment to the alien Tim Shaw that it should return home (after having set off the bombs inside itself) would strongly suggest that with the appropriate medical treatment, that the DNA bombs shouldn't be fatal. Since it had no choice but to comply and had stopped actively trying to kill them, that was tantamount to admitting defeat.
Doctor: You got everything transferred to you including five tiny bombs. You had a choice. You did this to yourself.
[ALIEN SCREAMS]
Go home.
In essence, he was killing an enemy that had already surrendered.
answered 10 hours ago
Valorum
379k9927592987
379k9927592987
The Doctor has always shown a perverse morality toward murderous aliens, giving them the choice to leave Earth rather than facing the consequences of their actions; tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Christmas_Invasion_(TV_story)
â Valorum
10 hours ago
1
It's no more perverse than allowing enemy soldiers (who had been murdering your soldiers on a routine basis) to go home when the war's over. The Doctor has consistently allowed opponents to live if they're willing to lay down arms and walk away. It's when s/he doesn't that they get scary.
â Keith Morrison
6 hours ago
2
It's only a rough analogy. And we're talking about The Doctor. The person who was faced with the "Would you kill Hitler as a baby?" decision with Davros and saved him. The person who let Bonnie get away with outright murder and terrorism because he thought the chance for peace was more important than vengeance, however justified.
â Keith Morrison
6 hours ago
2
I would not call this a "perverse" morality, I would call it a core element of the Doctor's character - perhaps the core element.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
2
@Valorum: The alternative is a cycle of retribution, which the Doctor has no desire to kick off.
â Kevin
4 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
The Doctor has always shown a perverse morality toward murderous aliens, giving them the choice to leave Earth rather than facing the consequences of their actions; tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Christmas_Invasion_(TV_story)
â Valorum
10 hours ago
1
It's no more perverse than allowing enemy soldiers (who had been murdering your soldiers on a routine basis) to go home when the war's over. The Doctor has consistently allowed opponents to live if they're willing to lay down arms and walk away. It's when s/he doesn't that they get scary.
â Keith Morrison
6 hours ago
2
It's only a rough analogy. And we're talking about The Doctor. The person who was faced with the "Would you kill Hitler as a baby?" decision with Davros and saved him. The person who let Bonnie get away with outright murder and terrorism because he thought the chance for peace was more important than vengeance, however justified.
â Keith Morrison
6 hours ago
2
I would not call this a "perverse" morality, I would call it a core element of the Doctor's character - perhaps the core element.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
2
@Valorum: The alternative is a cycle of retribution, which the Doctor has no desire to kick off.
â Kevin
4 hours ago
The Doctor has always shown a perverse morality toward murderous aliens, giving them the choice to leave Earth rather than facing the consequences of their actions; tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Christmas_Invasion_(TV_story)
â Valorum
10 hours ago
The Doctor has always shown a perverse morality toward murderous aliens, giving them the choice to leave Earth rather than facing the consequences of their actions; tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Christmas_Invasion_(TV_story)
â Valorum
10 hours ago
1
1
It's no more perverse than allowing enemy soldiers (who had been murdering your soldiers on a routine basis) to go home when the war's over. The Doctor has consistently allowed opponents to live if they're willing to lay down arms and walk away. It's when s/he doesn't that they get scary.
â Keith Morrison
6 hours ago
It's no more perverse than allowing enemy soldiers (who had been murdering your soldiers on a routine basis) to go home when the war's over. The Doctor has consistently allowed opponents to live if they're willing to lay down arms and walk away. It's when s/he doesn't that they get scary.
â Keith Morrison
6 hours ago
2
2
It's only a rough analogy. And we're talking about The Doctor. The person who was faced with the "Would you kill Hitler as a baby?" decision with Davros and saved him. The person who let Bonnie get away with outright murder and terrorism because he thought the chance for peace was more important than vengeance, however justified.
â Keith Morrison
6 hours ago
It's only a rough analogy. And we're talking about The Doctor. The person who was faced with the "Would you kill Hitler as a baby?" decision with Davros and saved him. The person who let Bonnie get away with outright murder and terrorism because he thought the chance for peace was more important than vengeance, however justified.
â Keith Morrison
6 hours ago
2
2
I would not call this a "perverse" morality, I would call it a core element of the Doctor's character - perhaps the core element.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
I would not call this a "perverse" morality, I would call it a core element of the Doctor's character - perhaps the core element.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
2
2
@Valorum: The alternative is a cycle of retribution, which the Doctor has no desire to kick off.
â Kevin
4 hours ago
@Valorum: The alternative is a cycle of retribution, which the Doctor has no desire to kick off.
â Kevin
4 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
It's similar to his reaction to Harriet Jones, British Prime Minister's (*) choice to destroy the Sycorax ship after The Doctor had gotten them to retreat. They'd already lost, in The Doctor's eyes, there was no need to kill them.
One could argue that there's no knowing if pushing Tim Shaw off the crane will result in his death (or at least any more than the DNA bombs will). Presumably, Tim Shaw will return to his planet on some sort of receiving platform, and whether he's on the ground or on the 47th floor of a building would not matter. He was falling as he teleported, but he'd only fallen a few yards or so - when he arrived at home, he'd probably arrive horizontal, but only with the kinetic energy of a very short fall, not a fatal one.
Still, She tells Karl From The Train off, more because at the very least it was a case of kicking Tim Shaw while he was down.
(*) Yes, we know who you are...
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
It's similar to his reaction to Harriet Jones, British Prime Minister's (*) choice to destroy the Sycorax ship after The Doctor had gotten them to retreat. They'd already lost, in The Doctor's eyes, there was no need to kill them.
One could argue that there's no knowing if pushing Tim Shaw off the crane will result in his death (or at least any more than the DNA bombs will). Presumably, Tim Shaw will return to his planet on some sort of receiving platform, and whether he's on the ground or on the 47th floor of a building would not matter. He was falling as he teleported, but he'd only fallen a few yards or so - when he arrived at home, he'd probably arrive horizontal, but only with the kinetic energy of a very short fall, not a fatal one.
Still, She tells Karl From The Train off, more because at the very least it was a case of kicking Tim Shaw while he was down.
(*) Yes, we know who you are...
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
It's similar to his reaction to Harriet Jones, British Prime Minister's (*) choice to destroy the Sycorax ship after The Doctor had gotten them to retreat. They'd already lost, in The Doctor's eyes, there was no need to kill them.
One could argue that there's no knowing if pushing Tim Shaw off the crane will result in his death (or at least any more than the DNA bombs will). Presumably, Tim Shaw will return to his planet on some sort of receiving platform, and whether he's on the ground or on the 47th floor of a building would not matter. He was falling as he teleported, but he'd only fallen a few yards or so - when he arrived at home, he'd probably arrive horizontal, but only with the kinetic energy of a very short fall, not a fatal one.
Still, She tells Karl From The Train off, more because at the very least it was a case of kicking Tim Shaw while he was down.
(*) Yes, we know who you are...
It's similar to his reaction to Harriet Jones, British Prime Minister's (*) choice to destroy the Sycorax ship after The Doctor had gotten them to retreat. They'd already lost, in The Doctor's eyes, there was no need to kill them.
One could argue that there's no knowing if pushing Tim Shaw off the crane will result in his death (or at least any more than the DNA bombs will). Presumably, Tim Shaw will return to his planet on some sort of receiving platform, and whether he's on the ground or on the 47th floor of a building would not matter. He was falling as he teleported, but he'd only fallen a few yards or so - when he arrived at home, he'd probably arrive horizontal, but only with the kinetic energy of a very short fall, not a fatal one.
Still, She tells Karl From The Train off, more because at the very least it was a case of kicking Tim Shaw while he was down.
(*) Yes, we know who you are...
answered 10 hours ago
VBartilucci
7,82411635
7,82411635
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Legal right
While the Doctor certainly disapproves of violence on moral grounds, when she said "you had no right to do that!", she may have also meant the legal right.
The Shadow Proclamation enforces interstellar law, including the rules by which technologically advanced societies may interact with primitive societies such as 21st-Century Earth. These strict regulations have been a recurring negotiating tool and/or legal impediment for The Doctor since their first mention in "Rose" (2005).
In "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" (2018), the Doctor may have been relying on this (or similar) interstellar law in her negotiation with the hostile alien. Karl's action, if in violation of legal protocol, may have opened the door to reprisals against Earth.
Interesting, but I think there's no way this is what she meant. Legal matters are the last thing the doctor cares about. They're boring to him/her. The doctor only brings them up when they win an argument or accomplish some direct purpose then and there. The doctor is very chaotic in nature (to steal D&D terms).
â Nacht
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Legal right
While the Doctor certainly disapproves of violence on moral grounds, when she said "you had no right to do that!", she may have also meant the legal right.
The Shadow Proclamation enforces interstellar law, including the rules by which technologically advanced societies may interact with primitive societies such as 21st-Century Earth. These strict regulations have been a recurring negotiating tool and/or legal impediment for The Doctor since their first mention in "Rose" (2005).
In "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" (2018), the Doctor may have been relying on this (or similar) interstellar law in her negotiation with the hostile alien. Karl's action, if in violation of legal protocol, may have opened the door to reprisals against Earth.
Interesting, but I think there's no way this is what she meant. Legal matters are the last thing the doctor cares about. They're boring to him/her. The doctor only brings them up when they win an argument or accomplish some direct purpose then and there. The doctor is very chaotic in nature (to steal D&D terms).
â Nacht
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Legal right
While the Doctor certainly disapproves of violence on moral grounds, when she said "you had no right to do that!", she may have also meant the legal right.
The Shadow Proclamation enforces interstellar law, including the rules by which technologically advanced societies may interact with primitive societies such as 21st-Century Earth. These strict regulations have been a recurring negotiating tool and/or legal impediment for The Doctor since their first mention in "Rose" (2005).
In "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" (2018), the Doctor may have been relying on this (or similar) interstellar law in her negotiation with the hostile alien. Karl's action, if in violation of legal protocol, may have opened the door to reprisals against Earth.
Legal right
While the Doctor certainly disapproves of violence on moral grounds, when she said "you had no right to do that!", she may have also meant the legal right.
The Shadow Proclamation enforces interstellar law, including the rules by which technologically advanced societies may interact with primitive societies such as 21st-Century Earth. These strict regulations have been a recurring negotiating tool and/or legal impediment for The Doctor since their first mention in "Rose" (2005).
In "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" (2018), the Doctor may have been relying on this (or similar) interstellar law in her negotiation with the hostile alien. Karl's action, if in violation of legal protocol, may have opened the door to reprisals against Earth.
answered 4 hours ago
Gaultheria
8,45812249
8,45812249
Interesting, but I think there's no way this is what she meant. Legal matters are the last thing the doctor cares about. They're boring to him/her. The doctor only brings them up when they win an argument or accomplish some direct purpose then and there. The doctor is very chaotic in nature (to steal D&D terms).
â Nacht
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Interesting, but I think there's no way this is what she meant. Legal matters are the last thing the doctor cares about. They're boring to him/her. The doctor only brings them up when they win an argument or accomplish some direct purpose then and there. The doctor is very chaotic in nature (to steal D&D terms).
â Nacht
1 hour ago
Interesting, but I think there's no way this is what she meant. Legal matters are the last thing the doctor cares about. They're boring to him/her. The doctor only brings them up when they win an argument or accomplish some direct purpose then and there. The doctor is very chaotic in nature (to steal D&D terms).
â Nacht
1 hour ago
Interesting, but I think there's no way this is what she meant. Legal matters are the last thing the doctor cares about. They're boring to him/her. The doctor only brings them up when they win an argument or accomplish some direct purpose then and there. The doctor is very chaotic in nature (to steal D&D terms).
â Nacht
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
The Doctor shows a consistent abhorrence of violence which has become more marked over time. One could argue that the first Doctor didn't really show this very strongly, but it becomes a theme over time. KFTT's attack on a defeated foe is well out of bounds for the Doctor's ethos.
In addition, the Doctor does not like to have their plans disrupted, and KFTT's attack disrupted the plan.
1
The latter part of this doesn't address the question of right
â Valorum
5 hours ago
The question of the wording - her use of the word "right" - will presumably be unrolled over the course of the coming series. At the moment, I'm answering the question of why the Doctor chastised KFTT.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
The Doctor shows a consistent abhorrence of violence which has become more marked over time. One could argue that the first Doctor didn't really show this very strongly, but it becomes a theme over time. KFTT's attack on a defeated foe is well out of bounds for the Doctor's ethos.
In addition, the Doctor does not like to have their plans disrupted, and KFTT's attack disrupted the plan.
1
The latter part of this doesn't address the question of right
â Valorum
5 hours ago
The question of the wording - her use of the word "right" - will presumably be unrolled over the course of the coming series. At the moment, I'm answering the question of why the Doctor chastised KFTT.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
The Doctor shows a consistent abhorrence of violence which has become more marked over time. One could argue that the first Doctor didn't really show this very strongly, but it becomes a theme over time. KFTT's attack on a defeated foe is well out of bounds for the Doctor's ethos.
In addition, the Doctor does not like to have their plans disrupted, and KFTT's attack disrupted the plan.
The Doctor shows a consistent abhorrence of violence which has become more marked over time. One could argue that the first Doctor didn't really show this very strongly, but it becomes a theme over time. KFTT's attack on a defeated foe is well out of bounds for the Doctor's ethos.
In addition, the Doctor does not like to have their plans disrupted, and KFTT's attack disrupted the plan.
answered 5 hours ago
Jon Kiparsky
501513
501513
1
The latter part of this doesn't address the question of right
â Valorum
5 hours ago
The question of the wording - her use of the word "right" - will presumably be unrolled over the course of the coming series. At the moment, I'm answering the question of why the Doctor chastised KFTT.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
The latter part of this doesn't address the question of right
â Valorum
5 hours ago
The question of the wording - her use of the word "right" - will presumably be unrolled over the course of the coming series. At the moment, I'm answering the question of why the Doctor chastised KFTT.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
1
1
The latter part of this doesn't address the question of right
â Valorum
5 hours ago
The latter part of this doesn't address the question of right
â Valorum
5 hours ago
The question of the wording - her use of the word "right" - will presumably be unrolled over the course of the coming series. At the moment, I'm answering the question of why the Doctor chastised KFTT.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
The question of the wording - her use of the word "right" - will presumably be unrolled over the course of the coming series. At the moment, I'm answering the question of why the Doctor chastised KFTT.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-4
down vote
She needs to check her Time Lord privilege. Karl was the intended victim of the horrible fate of eternal life on the cusp of death. He was the one with the right and he doesn't have have any idea who the Doctor is.
This is the same Doctor who watched Cassandra explode drowned millions of Racnoss babies and laughs as the Graff explodes from the bomb the Doctor planted on him.
That's all fine for the Time Lord Victorious but the "little people" better not take anything upon themselves.
New contributor
3
Welcome to SFF:SE. I'm afraid this rant doesn't answer the question asked. You might want to have a read of the tour and faq to get an idea we're about.
â Valorum
7 hours ago
I think it does. That line was the only thing i didn't like in the episode. I loved everything else. My point is that there is no reason other than the idea that Karl is not as worthy as she is as the Doctor to make these decisions. Think about the Orient Express episode. The Doctor has to make these decisions because no one else can. That's fine. But when someone does, the Doctor should understand.
â Paul
7 hours ago
1
I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question. You're answering an entirely new question of your own devising "What do you think about this thing that happened?"
â Valorum
6 hours ago
Calling the Doctor's long-established abhorrence of violent solutions an example of "privilege" suggests that you're new to the series. Go back and watch through the old episodes and get in-universe. I recommend starting with the first series and just watching all the way through.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-4
down vote
She needs to check her Time Lord privilege. Karl was the intended victim of the horrible fate of eternal life on the cusp of death. He was the one with the right and he doesn't have have any idea who the Doctor is.
This is the same Doctor who watched Cassandra explode drowned millions of Racnoss babies and laughs as the Graff explodes from the bomb the Doctor planted on him.
That's all fine for the Time Lord Victorious but the "little people" better not take anything upon themselves.
New contributor
3
Welcome to SFF:SE. I'm afraid this rant doesn't answer the question asked. You might want to have a read of the tour and faq to get an idea we're about.
â Valorum
7 hours ago
I think it does. That line was the only thing i didn't like in the episode. I loved everything else. My point is that there is no reason other than the idea that Karl is not as worthy as she is as the Doctor to make these decisions. Think about the Orient Express episode. The Doctor has to make these decisions because no one else can. That's fine. But when someone does, the Doctor should understand.
â Paul
7 hours ago
1
I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question. You're answering an entirely new question of your own devising "What do you think about this thing that happened?"
â Valorum
6 hours ago
Calling the Doctor's long-established abhorrence of violent solutions an example of "privilege" suggests that you're new to the series. Go back and watch through the old episodes and get in-universe. I recommend starting with the first series and just watching all the way through.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-4
down vote
up vote
-4
down vote
She needs to check her Time Lord privilege. Karl was the intended victim of the horrible fate of eternal life on the cusp of death. He was the one with the right and he doesn't have have any idea who the Doctor is.
This is the same Doctor who watched Cassandra explode drowned millions of Racnoss babies and laughs as the Graff explodes from the bomb the Doctor planted on him.
That's all fine for the Time Lord Victorious but the "little people" better not take anything upon themselves.
New contributor
She needs to check her Time Lord privilege. Karl was the intended victim of the horrible fate of eternal life on the cusp of death. He was the one with the right and he doesn't have have any idea who the Doctor is.
This is the same Doctor who watched Cassandra explode drowned millions of Racnoss babies and laughs as the Graff explodes from the bomb the Doctor planted on him.
That's all fine for the Time Lord Victorious but the "little people" better not take anything upon themselves.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 7 hours ago
Paul
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
3
Welcome to SFF:SE. I'm afraid this rant doesn't answer the question asked. You might want to have a read of the tour and faq to get an idea we're about.
â Valorum
7 hours ago
I think it does. That line was the only thing i didn't like in the episode. I loved everything else. My point is that there is no reason other than the idea that Karl is not as worthy as she is as the Doctor to make these decisions. Think about the Orient Express episode. The Doctor has to make these decisions because no one else can. That's fine. But when someone does, the Doctor should understand.
â Paul
7 hours ago
1
I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question. You're answering an entirely new question of your own devising "What do you think about this thing that happened?"
â Valorum
6 hours ago
Calling the Doctor's long-established abhorrence of violent solutions an example of "privilege" suggests that you're new to the series. Go back and watch through the old episodes and get in-universe. I recommend starting with the first series and just watching all the way through.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3
Welcome to SFF:SE. I'm afraid this rant doesn't answer the question asked. You might want to have a read of the tour and faq to get an idea we're about.
â Valorum
7 hours ago
I think it does. That line was the only thing i didn't like in the episode. I loved everything else. My point is that there is no reason other than the idea that Karl is not as worthy as she is as the Doctor to make these decisions. Think about the Orient Express episode. The Doctor has to make these decisions because no one else can. That's fine. But when someone does, the Doctor should understand.
â Paul
7 hours ago
1
I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question. You're answering an entirely new question of your own devising "What do you think about this thing that happened?"
â Valorum
6 hours ago
Calling the Doctor's long-established abhorrence of violent solutions an example of "privilege" suggests that you're new to the series. Go back and watch through the old episodes and get in-universe. I recommend starting with the first series and just watching all the way through.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
3
3
Welcome to SFF:SE. I'm afraid this rant doesn't answer the question asked. You might want to have a read of the tour and faq to get an idea we're about.
â Valorum
7 hours ago
Welcome to SFF:SE. I'm afraid this rant doesn't answer the question asked. You might want to have a read of the tour and faq to get an idea we're about.
â Valorum
7 hours ago
I think it does. That line was the only thing i didn't like in the episode. I loved everything else. My point is that there is no reason other than the idea that Karl is not as worthy as she is as the Doctor to make these decisions. Think about the Orient Express episode. The Doctor has to make these decisions because no one else can. That's fine. But when someone does, the Doctor should understand.
â Paul
7 hours ago
I think it does. That line was the only thing i didn't like in the episode. I loved everything else. My point is that there is no reason other than the idea that Karl is not as worthy as she is as the Doctor to make these decisions. Think about the Orient Express episode. The Doctor has to make these decisions because no one else can. That's fine. But when someone does, the Doctor should understand.
â Paul
7 hours ago
1
1
I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question. You're answering an entirely new question of your own devising "What do you think about this thing that happened?"
â Valorum
6 hours ago
I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question. You're answering an entirely new question of your own devising "What do you think about this thing that happened?"
â Valorum
6 hours ago
Calling the Doctor's long-established abhorrence of violent solutions an example of "privilege" suggests that you're new to the series. Go back and watch through the old episodes and get in-universe. I recommend starting with the first series and just watching all the way through.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
Calling the Doctor's long-established abhorrence of violent solutions an example of "privilege" suggests that you're new to the series. Go back and watch through the old episodes and get in-universe. I recommend starting with the first series and just watching all the way through.
â Jon Kiparsky
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f196275%2fwhy-did-the-doctor-chastise-karl-for-kicking-tzim-sha%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Well arguably Tzim-Sha had killed himself, rather than the Doctor doing it. And I thought the "you had no right to do that" was directed at Tzim rather than Karl, though I could be mistaken.
â Jontia
10 hours ago
1
@Jontia True, but I struggled to get that accross in a punchy title. I explain in the post that Tim detonated the bombs. But he had already teleported before she made the comment and she turned to Karl when she said it
â Astralbee
10 hours ago
Good point. Although talking to (or at) characters that have just left is a fairly common TV/Film convention.
â Jontia
10 hours ago
@Sava (cc Astralbee) Making a post entirely spoilers is next to pointless because people have no way of knowing what the spoiler could contain and so will have to read it anyway. In the future can you try and make posts readable without having to see most of the content hidden behind spoiler markdown. I haven't seen the episode yet but I have tried to do this here.
â TheLethalCarrot
10 hours ago
"Never be cruel, and never be cowardly". That's the consistent promise among all the Doctor's Incarnations.
â tilley31
9 hours ago