406 replies to this topic

[Lightsnake]

Kheldar, on Jun 26 2008, 12.01, said:

You've got a mixed message here.  What if the combatant is a child?  Is violence against the child then justified?

You'll get no argument from me on the latter part...violence directed against non-combatants is wrong.  (BTW, before anyone tries to jump on this, people who place themselves in the midst of combat or position themselves where they suspect there will be combat are not "non-combatants"...they are unarmed passive combatants.)

If it is an honest matter between life and death in an actual warzone and you have absolutely no other choice in the matter...justified? No. Necessary? Perhaps. Children can become willing suicide bombers or fighters, especially in war torn countries, sickening as it is.
The issue is, though, Violet was not a combatant. Richard's thoughts express nothing but pity towards her until she sticks out her tongue at him.
I find it momentously difficult to sympathize much with Richard after this, remarkably how he never demonstrates a trace of remorse. If it were just over the threat of having his girlfriend raped and killed, then we can talk about the anger being justified, actions aside. But what sets it all off?

Quote

It wasn't meant to inform on the Violet situation.  For the 18 billionth time, it was relevant only to Myshkin's apparent complete opposition to there ever being justification for harming a child.

I have 5 kids.  Every time I type out a phrase like "justification for harming a child", my stomach turns.

As I said above. I don't believe it can be 'justified,' merely, on occasion, an unfortunate turn of the situation.

Quote

A flawed one.  TG may not think so, and may not portray him that way, but he is.

But that's the problem, Kheldar...Terry Goodkind, the author, is not MEANT to write him as a flawed hero. He does NOT portray him that. He expects us to sympathize and cheer him on. That is a flaw. In ASOIAF, George RR Martin portrays Jaime Lannister as 'flawed' or Sandor Clegane. Both are brutal men who do many horrible things...but they know this. They realize this. Both of them go through development because of it. They are flawed as GRRM intended and it shows.
The same cannot be said of Richard.

Quote

I'm not trying to justify it.  I think I've said that about 20 times in this thread.

You must realize howw this makes Richard remarkably unappealing as a hero we're supposed to root for and to ask ourselves what he would do in a situation?
Richard's actions have the habit of being very morally questionable, and that Goodkind doesn't realize it is an issue.

Quote

It's his right and duty as First Wizard.

No, I don't know how he got the position as First Wizard.

you could cover that up for any of the villains. "It's their right and duty according to their position." Jagang sees the conversion of the New World as his right and duty, for one. Simply having 'the position' doesn't strike me as a massive 'get out of jail free' card for positions.
Especially when, in Faith of the Fallen, the guy who decides to follow his sword sovereign's orders as is her right and duty, is named a traitor and killed.

Quote

That was the trigger, not the reason.

There is nothing in the text to hint otherwise. Prior, his feelings are described as 'pity,' nothing more. You can't ascribe more to the text than what is written.

Quote

Which means that violence against a child can be justified.  For the 21st time, that's all I was talking about...not Violet.

If that's not part of the subject though...?

Quote

No.

Do you see, though, how neither Goodkind nor Richard realizing this is a pretty bad thing?

Quote

Ask TG what he intended, not me.  What I got out of it was that the Peace Protesters were, in effect, choosing to support "the bad guy" and attempting to stop "the good guy" from dispensing justice.  That they were unarmed is immaterial.  The effect of their actions, if successful, would be to perpetuate Nicholas' position and allow him to kill more people.  To that degree, they were acting on behalf of the "bad guy".

That they were 'unarmed is immaterial?' That's a bit of a bold statement to make. Yes, they barred Richard's way, but this is absolutely no excuse to begin butchering the unarmed, especially given the disturbing metaphors of this scenario. Richard could have dealt with the situation at a further date or chosen to force his way through the crowd...instead he does not use morality or reason-but force and violence to convince them. Something that is supposed to be against Goodkind's message

[Kheldar]

El Jax Campeador, on Jun 26 2008, 11.57, said:

The problem is you've failed to convince anyone that violence against a child can be justified.  I'll stipulate to rationalized in a time of war, but never justified.  And in any case, Richard wasn't at war with Violet.

From now on, I'm going to ignore any post that connects my discussion on the potential for being able to justify violence against a child with Richard's actions against Violet.

How do you define "justify", and how does it differ from "rationalize"?

El Jax Campeador, on Jun 26 2008, 11.57, said:

Richard needs the antidote.  He's faced with the obstacle of the protesters.  Why wouldn't the magic have worked for him then?

Because the need wasn't there.  He could mow through unarmed people who intentionally stood between him and Nicholas.

El Jax Campeador, on Jun 26 2008, 11.57, said:

Because otherwise TG wouldn't have had a chance for a kick ass one sided battle where the "hero" tries to prove a flawed, unrealistic philosophy.  The simple fact that there was another solution available to Richard instead of slaughtering innocents simply seems to highlight the fact that Mr. Goodkind is just a really bad writer.

They abandoned their "innocent" status when they chose to protect Nicholas from Richard.

El Jax Campeador, on Jun 26 2008, 11.57, said:

Something you almost seem to agree with, at least in so far as this particular book is concerned.

Sort of.  I understood and accepted forcing his way through the protesters (I'd have to check, but I think once he was through, the killing of the protesters stopped...slightly different from wholesale slaughter).  I didn't like the use of magic as the solution to the problem of being poisoned....at least, not in the way it was done.  Had he magically learned to identify the poison, and then magically cleansed his body of all traces of that poison....that would have been fine.  But magically being guided to follow complex steps required to brew up an antidote?

[Jaxom 1974]

Lightsnake, on Jun 26 2008, 11.23, said:

That they were 'unarmed is immaterial?' That's a bit of a bold statement to make. Yes, they barred Richard's way, but this is absolutely no excuse to begin butchering the unarmed, especially given the disturbing metaphors of this scenario. Richard could have dealt with the situation at a further date or chosen to force his way through the crowd...instead he does not use morality or reason-but force and violence to convince them. Something that is supposed to be against Goodkind's message

Not to mention HE HAD A FREAKIN' OUT WITH THE MAGIC TO BEGIN WITH!  The whole scenario was irrelevant to begin with and rendered less so when the ultimate goal of the situation was rendered null and void by the use of another solution.

[Jaxom 1974]

Quote

Because the need wasn't there. He could mow through unarmed people who intentionally stood between him and Nicholas.

"I'm poisoned.  Without the antidote, I'm going to die."  How is that not a need?

Edited by El Jax Campeador, 26 June 2008 - 11:33 AM.

[Eloisa]

Kheldar, on Jun 26 2008, 17.14, said:

Aemon Stark said:

Aggravated assault does not become justified by a person's "mindset".

Innocent by Reason of Insanity.

Yep, it's a valid defence.  It's a valid defence that typically gets people detained in a secure mental institution for a good number of years.


ETA: Kheldar, I think the line other posters are trying to draw between "rationalise" and "justify" is as follows.  Rationalise = it is the rational thing to do, e.g. the Vietnam vet killing a child was rational to do so to save his life.  Justify = it is the morally right thing to do, e.g. it is absolutely morally wrong to kill a child - in the Vietnam case it's highly likely that a ten-year-old suicide bomber was brainwashed into it.

Edited by Eloisa, 26 June 2008 - 11:42 AM.

[Jaxom 1974]

Eloisa, on Jun 26 2008, 11.38, said:

ETA: Kheldar, I think the line other posters are trying to draw between "rationalise" and "justify" is as follows.  Rationalise = it is the rational thing to do, e.g. the Vietnam vet killing a child was rational to do so to save his life.  Justify = it is the morally right thing to do, e.g. it is absolutely morally wrong to kill a child - in the Vietnam case it's highly likely that a ten-year-old suicide bomber was brainwashed into it.

Pretty nice summation.

Second thread to move this discussion to is up and running as a mod will surely lock this one at any time as we're past 400.  :P

Edited by Gazprom United, 26 June 2008 - 11:48 AM.
Jaxom can't spell for shit, but I won't let him be the butt of jokes. ;)

[Xray the Enforcer]

We have passed the magic number!