I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Maxperson]

You don’t consider Smeagol to have been corrupted immediately?

That's the wrong question. The correct question is why the ring's corrupting influence, so strong it could turn Galadriel and Gandalf, didn't turn him into a wraith in a few short years.

And no, he wasn't corrupted immediately. It began the process immediately, but it took a long time and 500 years later still hadn't finished.

Anyway, you can interpret what you have read however you see fit - according to the totality of Tolkien’s world, they are basically the same, aside from being smaller and larger.

Sure. I'll interpret Hobbits have some resistance to corruption as Hobbits have some resistance to corruption. You can interpret those words differently if you like.

 

[Cadence]

And no, he wasn't corrupted immediately. It began the process immediately, but it took a long time and 500 years later still hadn't finished.

I can see how someone seeing him immediately murdering his friend might think it corrupted him immediately.

Is corruption like being moldy - one can have a bit of mold or be entirely covered - or is it an all or nothing thing?

 

[The Firebird]

That's the wrong question. The correct question is why the ring's corrupting influence, so strong it could turn Galadriel and Gandalf, didn't turn him into a wraith in a few short years.

And no, he wasn't corrupted immediately. It began the process immediately, but it took a long time and 500 years later still hadn't finished.

Sure. I'll interpret Hobbits have some resistance to corruption as Hobbits have some resistance to corruption. You can interpret those words differently if you like.

Plus, even at his lowest, Gollum's goals were much smaller in scope compared to what Gandalf or Galadriel would have done.

 

[Mr. Lahey]

That's the wrong question. The correct question is why the ring's corrupting influence, so strong it could turn Galadriel and Gandalf, didn't turn him into a wraith in a few short years.

And no, he wasn't corrupted immediately. It began the process immediately, but it took a long time and 500 years later still hadn't finished.

Sure. I'll interpret Hobbits have some resistance to corruption as Hobbits have some resistance to corruption. You can interpret those words differently if you like.

We don’t know the ring could turn either Galdalf or Galadriel, though they each feared that would be the result.

If killing one’s friend within minutes of coming near the ring isn’t immediate corruption, then you have I have fundamental differences in our definition of corruption that makes further conversation pointless.

 

[Maxperson]

To be fair, dwarves were explicitly designed by the Valar Aule to be resistant to the works of the Enemy. That's why Sauron couldn't use the Seven to put them under his thrall (not to say that the dwarf-rings had no effect on them).

Yes. They were much more resistant to corruption than hobbits and would never have become wraiths. Hobbits on the other hand are less resistant, but still resistant. They will slowly become wraiths, such that even 500 years is not enough time, and that's if the hobbit is initially evil, say a greedy murderer. Hobbits like Bilbo, Frodo and Sam would turn even slower than that.

The rings, even if Sauron handed them out to men almost immediately, turned them fully into ringwraiths on the outside amount of time, 550 years, but probably much sooner. Gollum wasn't even close to becoming one. And that's with the lesser rings of power!! The one Gollum, Bilbo and Frodo had was the One Ring. By far the most powerful and corruptive of them all.

 

[Maxperson]

I can see how someone seeing him immediately murdering his friend might think it corrupted him immediately.

Is corruption like being moldy - one can have a bit of mold or be entirely covered - or is it an all or nothing thing?

In Lord of the Rings its a slow change. Corruption of the sort we are talking about doesn't happen immediately in Middle Earth. We aren't discussing corruption like politicians and murderers engage in.

 

[Maxperson]

We don’t know the ring could turn either Galdalf or Galadriel, though they each feared that would be the result.

I mean, two of the three wisest and knowledgeable beings on Middle Earth were pretty sure of it, and the third(Elrond) was almost surely in the same boat as they were.

If killing one’s friend within minutes of coming near the ring isn’t immediate corruption, then you have I have fundamental differences in our definition of corruption that makes further conversation pointless.

There's corruption, like politicians, murderers and petty criminals engage in. And then there is the cancerous magical corruption that turns you into a ringwraith. Are you really arguing that those are the same thing?

 

[Maxperson]

Plus, even at his lowest, Gollum's goals were much smaller in scope compared to what Gandalf or Galadriel would have done.

I don't know. Catch a fish and eat it seems pretty high up on the list.

 

[CreamCloud0]

We don’t know the ring could turn either Galdalf or Galadriel, though they each feared that would be the result.

If killing one’s friend within minutes of coming near the ring isn’t immediate corruption, then you have I have fundamental differences in our definition of corruption that makes further conversation pointless.

what i got from that scene in the movie was in those first moments the ring was actively trying to influence him, after he had it in his possession it settled down and didn't have a good reason to be blasting full force 'do evil' vibes at him, at which point the resistance starts to factor in more passively against the long term corrupting effects.

 

[billd91]

If killing one’s friend within minutes of coming near the ring isn’t immediate corruption, then you have I have fundamental differences in our definition of corruption that makes further conversation pointless.

Given how both Bilbo and Frodo were corrupted much more subtlely and slowly, it's hard to square Sméagol's corruption into committing murder with such immediacy. That is, unless it turns out that Sméagol was a pretty sick personality even before Déagol found the ring - which I think we might be able to infer from the story Gandalf relates to Frodo.