Full Series The Clone Wars: Episode 217: Bounty Hunters Discussion Thread (Spoilers Allowed)

ok forget dissecting the term. As I have been saying the definition of "bounty hunter" applies directly. It is a cold hard fact.

 

Sugi's band is clearly not pursuing Hondo. The guy drives up to the farm, has a nice chat and the mercs do nothing. Does that sound like a group that's pursuing someone? They only engage Hondo's band when they attack the farm, because their orders are to protect the farm, not pursue Hondo. Also, if Sugi's band had been simply hired to pursue Hondo, why would they be pointing blaster at the Jedi when they arrive? Because they were hired simply to protect the farm from whoever attacks it.

That, is NOT bounty hunting.

Sure, they may be bounty hunters, we don't know what else they do with their lives. But here on felucia, they were hired simply as mercenary bodyguards.

 

Bounty hunters can be hired to protect something and get paid, although that's not "bounty hunting."
If they were after Hondo, they would have shot Hondo immediately or, better yet, went after him. But they didn't. They were hired to protect the farmers and get paid. They weren't after a bounty.

 

But if you look at the definition of the single term "bounty hunter," and it seems to me that it's used in this episode as a single term, you'll see that that term uses a limited defintion of "bounty."

They were hunting bounty.
But they weren't doing what makes a person a "bounty hunter."

It's just a quirk of English. But it is what it is.

By the way, do you see it now GGRievous? That I'm agreeing with you?

 

Not arguing with that. Even I can be hired to protect something...

 

GGrievous are you even reading these.

Here is the brief from the farmers.
"Hey Sugi, when the pirates come for my crops, you and your crew need to stop them. Then I will pay you"

So in order to do this Sugi must fulfill this part of the defintion - "2. One who pursues a criminal or fugitive for whom a reward is offered."

Is that clear or should we go on.
Isnt this case closed now!

 

Read my post under Gry's on the top of the page.

 

Can't admit that you missed my meaning?

 

Most certainly not. Read my post above. Sugi's band never pursues Hondo.

Also, guys, beware of baiting. It's fine and dandy to disagree and discuss this til we're blue in the mouth. But don't bait.

 

Bounty hunting does not mean that if you find money or will get paid other than hunting someone, you're bounty hunting. That's not true. Sugi's band were not bounty hunting, but protecting someone. They will get paid, but they're not bounty hunting.

Again, like my standing in a corner theory: Let's say I'll get paid for standing in a corner for a minute. Is that bounty hunting? absolutely not.

 

Or are you saying that I'm making a distinction between the sentence fragment "bounty hunting" and the technical term "bounty hunter," but the post you referred me to is trying to indicate that no such distinction exists?


If so, I mean no offense. But you are wrong. That distinction can be made. I can be hunting a bounty (or, bounty hunting by protecting some land (hunting) for money (bounty), but I wouldn't be doing that which is unique to one called by the term "bounty hunter."

 

OH NO. YOU ARE KIDDING!
Now we are using the term "pursue" too narrowly. Did you lot do English at school????

Just so we are clear;

pur·sue (pr-s)
v. pur·sued, pur·su·ing, pur·sues
v.tr.
1. To follow in an effort to overtake or capture; chase: a fox that was pursued by hounds.
2. To strive to gain or accomplish: pursue lofty political goals.
3. To proceed along the course of; follow: a ship that pursued the southern course.
4. To carry further; advance: Let's not pursue this argument.
5. To be engaged in (a vocation or hobby, for example).
6. To court: a lady who was pursued by many suitors.
7. To continue to torment or afflict; haunt: was pursued by the demons of lust and greed.
v.intr.
1. To follow in an effort to overtake or capture; chase.
2. To carry on; continue.


And this applies cos Sugi is forced to PURSUE Hondo once he engages them and attacks the farm. Just cos Hondo(or whomever) starts the attack, doesnt mean that Sugi isnt THEN "pursuing" them and is thus acting as a Bounty Hunter. Surely this is clear NOW!

 

[image=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/picard-facepalm.jpg]

 

If I was included in that warning, it was not my intention to bait.

But, he accused me of certain things, because he was not understanding what I was saying. I pointed that out to him, and wanted to see if he would treat me fairly by acknowledging it. It didn't seem like he was. Like instead he was going to force an adversarial dialogue by not acknowleding he missed something.

I don't want to be aversarial to anyone. Especially not over entertainment. And I don't want them to be adversarial to me either. I was simply giving him a chance not to be. Sorry if it came off as too smarmy for your tastes.

 

Again with the broad definitions to explain a specific term. Ok, so "pursue" can mean "to court". By your logic someone who courts a woman for money is a Bounty Hunter, is it?

In the term "Bounty Hunter", the pursue part clearly indicates to chase, go after, find the guy. How can you be doing any of this if, when the guy walks right up to you and greets you, you do nothing.

Also, if Sugi's band was hired to pursue Hondo, why then do they point their blasters at the Jedi?

 

Everybody here was included in that warning. This is a heated debate, and I just want to make sure it remains civil. There's been a little baiting from all sides, but nothing to get worked up about. I enjoy a heated discussion, as long as we can control our tempers.

 

Look, the episode is called "Bounty Hunters" because that's what they were. They were just hired to do something different in the episode. Just like Han Solo is a smuggler by trade but he took the job of taking Luke and Ben on a charter trip to Alderaan because he needed the money!

 

Yes, I think everybody here has already agreed that they can very well be Bounty Hunters. The issue is that they didn't do any actual "bounty hunting" in this episode.

 

That's true. Anyone can take a different job, out of your specialty. Sugi's band maybe bounty hunters, but they were hired to protect the farmers and get paid. They weren't bounty hunting.

 

Pursue means "engage". They WERENT specifically pursuing Hondo. They were "pursuing" ANYONE who threatened the farm.
Is this not true!

 

They were defending the farm, not pursuing anyone.

 

Ok, so you're saying they were hired to "pursue" anybody who threatened the farm.

Isn't that just a very truncated way to say they were hired to protect the farm?

Also, your dictionary definition doesn't say that pursue means "engage". There's this:
5. To be engaged in (a vocation or hobby, for example).
But even to me, a non native English speaker, that doesn't seem to mean the same thing.

 

Do you guys not see the difference between using two terms that are part of a technical term, and using the term itself? Because there is a difference.

If someone says "deliver this package and I'll pay you $100" then by doing the thing to get the money one could say I'm hunting bounty (pursuing the $100). One could even change the word order and say I'm bounty hunting. So instead of "snake hunting," for example, I'm bounty (i.e. $100) hunting. Is it awkward usage of the terms? You bet, especially in the second sentence. Is it a less than optimal way of describing what I'm doing. It would seem so, as it can cause confusion. But is it an invalid or incorrect way of using those two terms? No.

You guys are saying someone would be wrong for doing something that they wouldn't be wrong for. They might be unwise. But not wrong.

But, given the defnition of the compound term "bounty hunter" it would not be correct for someone to say that by me delivering the package for $100 I'm doing what makes a bounty hunter a bounty hunter.


It seems to me you guys are hacked at curtains, and want to shut him or her down completely. But truth will not allow you to do so. It is accurate, if also awkward, to say those 4 in this episode were "hunting bounty" or even "bounty hunting." But it isn't accurate to say they were doing what makes a person a "bounty hunter."

 

Again waheennay comes in with a great point reminding us that what they were doing in this episode, while a legitimate question, is different from "what is their occupation."

The good news though is that we all seem to me in agreement on that now.

 

Ok, given curtain's point about "pursuing," and gry's counter point about "protecting," can we not say that at this point we have insufficient evidence to answer the queston of what they were doing?


If there is a distinction between pursuing and protecting (and some will deny there is), then what we need to know is were these folks hired to:

1) only act defensively and keep the pirates from taking the crop, without capturing, harming, or killing them

2) keep the pirates from taking the crop, and if that means capturing, harming, or killing them, so be it

or

3) hired to capture, harm, or kill the pirates (because they are threatening the crop)


If it's one, I think we'd be very hard pressed to say they were doing what "bounty hunters" do.
If it's three, I think we have to say they were doing what "bounty hunters" do.
If it's two, well that's tough.

And here's the thing: We don't know exactly what they were hired to do. We don't know the parameters of their mission. Thus we don't know whether they were doing what "bounty hunters" do, or what guns for hire do.

How about that? Can we pull a David Hume and say we don't have enough infio??