No throwing tomatoes please....but I am from .Net

[Kheldar]

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1416339' date='Jun 26 2008, 11.57']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.[/quote]
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"?

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1416339' date='Jun 26 2008, 11.57']Richard needs the antidote. He's faced with the obstacle of the protesters. Why wouldn't the magic have worked for him then?[/quote]
Because the need wasn't there. He could mow through unarmed people who intentionally stood between him and Nicholas.

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1416339' date='Jun 26 2008, 11.57']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.[/quote]
They abandoned their "innocent" status when they chose to protect Nicholas from Richard.

[quote name='El Jax Campeador' post='1416339' date='Jun 26 2008, 11.57']Something you almost seem to agree with, at least in so far as this particular book is concerned.[/quote]
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]

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1416395' date='Jun 26 2008, 11.23']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[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

[Zoë Sumra]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1416376' date='Jun 26 2008, 17.14'][quote name='Aemon Stark']Aggravated assault does not become justified by a person's "mindset".[/quote]

Innocent by Reason of Insanity.
[/quote]
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.

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='Eloisa' post='1416422' date='Jun 26 2008, 11.38']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.[/quote]

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

[Xray the Enforcer]

We have passed the magic number!