Tomatoes 2

[Lightsnake]

[quote]They weren't innocent. Siding with evil (and opposing good is siding with evil) has consequences. The passive-aggressive pacifists accepted the possibility of being killed when they placed themselves in front of the known target.[/quote]
Good and evil are a matter of perspective. To them, violence was evil and that's what Richard represented.
That's what we call a 'strawman' from Goodkind

[quote]So Richard, on one horse, should have been able to make it through thousands? Or Richard and 20 people on 20 horses? The horses slow down as they're trampling and ramming people...if a cavalry charge can't sweep all the way through the enemy lines and get some running room again, the horsemen better know how to fight. That's why cavalry would charge in and then sweep back out. Momentum will only carry them so far.[/quote]
Please. Learn about horsemanship in war. Richard had a sizeable force. Frankly, if it was anything less, the people wouldn't have scattered.


[quote]Great. What's the fallacy?[/quote]
Hasty Generalization, False Dilemma...those come to mind.
[quote]How many?[/quote]
As it was enough to make the crowds scatter screaming, it would seem quite a few
[quote]That's rich, coming from a guy who is twisting nearly every point that's been brought up.[/quote]
Please provide an example of that.
[quote]But to my point...."slaughter" itself, with or without "mass", implies something different than what happened....it implies that the goal of the attack was to kill the unarmed human shields. German death camps involved slaughter. The attack through human shields didn't.[/quote]
No, 'mass slaughter' would refer to a bunch of people slaughtered in mass. Don't use an appeal to emotion by throwing out the German death camps (Godwin's Law in action, I see), because yes, it DID involve slaughter. A mass killing of unarmed people would also involve slaughter

[quote]And you complain about my analogy? Muslims would want to prevent you from eating the pork, not make you eat pork to save your life.[/quote]
They'd want me to not eat pork and save my soul. I'm using such an analogy to show why yours with the JWs was highly flawed

[quote]Pointless to you, who disagrees with the messages being conveyed by the author.[/quote]
What WAS the message then? Because I find his setup and communication of it contemptible

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1424585' date='Jul 2 2008, 11.17']Richard is not a soldier following the orders of a bunch of ultra-pacifists. That was the topic. He was under no obligation to sacrifice his life for their beliefs.[/quote]
But he was comfortable forcing them to sacrifice their lives for his. So?

[quote]The ones who scattered weren't hunted down and killed, were they?[/quote]

[quote]Richard had made it clear prior to then that choosing not to fight, declaring neutrality, was going to result in invasion by the D'Haran Empire or the Imperial Order at some point. Tactical necessity would/could shift just when that would happen.[/quote]
As opposed to wasting resources converting or defending them when Richard's made it abundantly clear earlier in the series that something like this WERE wastes of time and resource

[quote]His orders were superseded by his Queen's superior, the Mother Confessor.[/quote]
Who no longer has any actual authority once his superior stops listening. and under such a system, he's only supposed to listen to his direct superior.
[quote]They would say "executed".[/quote]
Execution implies after some process of law. Seems contradicting the Mother Confessor is OK if

[quote]His orders were superseded by his Queen's superior, the Mother Confessor.[/quote]
Endlessly parroting your earlier phrases don't make them more valid. As we've covered, and you've ceased to argue how the Mother Confessor has any power, because my reason
[quote]If a private is ordered by a colonel to do some task, and a general comes and overrides that order, which officer is he obligated to obey?[/quote]
Irrelevant. Under such a feudal system, Harold is sworn to his sister who is seceding from Kahlan's authority.
Give me a reason why Kahlan has any authority and we can continue on this note. Frankly, if it was this simple, we'd never have mutinites or uprising.

Also, on that note: Kheldar, a human cannot move like that without a spine. once you rip a spinal column out and the person collapses, that is it. Their control of their legs and their arms is gone...Drefan's stomach is open, his spine is severed...he should be dead instantly...being able to STAND AGAIN, let alone swing or HOLD a sword?

[Kheldar]

[quote name='Werthead' post='1424718' date='Jul 2 2008, 12.19']Regarding spineless combat:

I'm not as well-versed in the field as BrantheBuilder, but I have seen some reenactments in my time and had to study up on the subject for a History degree, and the situation as Goodkind describes it can be called 'nonsensical' or, perhaps more accurately, 'totally batshit insane'. However, it should be pointed out that we are regarding the situation with the rules from our world. In Dick Rahl's world, it may well be that 'humans' are biologically different from those of our world and may have secondary nerve-transmission systems that allow continued movement after the spine is removed/destroyed/disabled, as well as pain-abeyance systems that prevent someone from screaming in agony from just having had their spinal column severed, not to mention mental conditioning that deflects the shock and catatonia that such an event would entail, and allowing them to focus their remaining body strength for one last swing before succumbing.[/quote]
Oy.

First of all, legendary chi masters are supposed to be able to perform impossible feats. As a healer, Drefan manipulated his aura (chi) to stop blood flow, even bypass the pain of a spinal injury. He ignored a punch earlier in the book to a nerve center that should have debilitated him to some degree. He modified his breathing and body's reaction to powder Kahlan threw in his face in order to counteract the effects.

Secondly, as I've stated multiple times, even to the point of showing the writing issue that caused confusion, Richard did not rip out Drefan's entire spine...he yanked his hand back out, ripping Drefan's spinal column apart in the lumbar region. He would be unable to use his lower body, but with the ability to bypass/ignore the pain (which could take a few moments to attain...thus the short lull in the action), he could gather himself for one last assault, weak and hopeless as it may be. Slumping to the ground is an effect of losing control of everything below the destroyed spine, plus the initial impact of pain (prior to training-based bypassing of the pain).

While it is fantastical, it's (again) not all that unusual a concept.

But if you choose to read and interpret the events in a different way (i.e., the entire spine was ripped out), then you'll not accept the action as possible at all. That's not TG's problem, it's yours. TG's problem is that it wasn't clear enough what was ripped "back out"...the wording was slightly ambiguous. I already showed that it wouldn't have been the spine, so the "it" could only be Richard's hand (referenced in the previous sentence.)

[Kheldar]

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']And from a rational and moral perspective, he's wrong much more.[/quote]
Not an Objectivist's rational and moral perspective.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']How about mass slaughter of innocents from Faith of the Fallen when Kahlan's forces butcher slaves and prostitutes? Nobody ever blames them, of course.[/quote]
It was justified as killing those who support and give comfort to the enemy soldiers, those who make their living off of the leavings of the IO army. I don't agree with the logic, but I understand the reasoning.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']No, it isn't. So when do Richard's forces loses control and start raping the women in the towns they sack? No, only the Order does it.[/quote]
Right. Richard and/or Kahlan made it clear that such "spoils of war" were unacceptable.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']And according to Confessor, they do eat testicles.[/quote]
I must have missed that part.

Out of curiosity...if you dislike the books so much, why would you waste your time reading them?

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']If her authority is rejected, a stronger force has destroyed her group and made her outlaw, why exactly is...anyone obligated to follow her? 'Because she's the mother Confessor' is a poor answer and gives no logic or reason behind it.[/quote]
Because the destroying force was itself in fact overcome (that would be Darken Rahl), and the new leader of D'Hara (that would be Richard) supported her position.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']Whereas the IO controls parts of the Midlands and Galea has seceded from that authority.[/quote]
Secession brings with it its own set of consequences.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']So? If they decide they don't want the Mother Confessor any more, how does some 'inherited' right interfere? How do you 'inherit' the right? Seems illogical to me.[/quote]
You know feudalism and horsemanship and weaponry, but you don't understand the concept of inherited right to rule?

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']And apparently the Confessors are still gone, so Kahlan remains Mother Confessor only so long as the Midlanders accept her as a sovereign. When they don't, she ceases to be one[/quote]
No, she is still Mother Confessor. Attempts to separate from the ruling system are just that...attempts.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']And Galea refused that at one point.[/quote]
And their refusal earned them consequences.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']Again, what makes the Confessors less culpable for their crimes?[/quote]
What crimes are you jumping to now?

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']So the sovereigns of Midlands weren't subservient to him?[/quote]
Not really...only the ones that were voluntarily working with him.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']I assume there are laws against murder and slavery in Midlands.[/quote]
Beats me, but I would assume so for at least murder. The justice system isn't gone into, other than the Seeker being an independent force of justice.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']It's always been that way with kingdoms and revolution. "Treason is a charge invented by the winners as an excuse for hanging the losers."
Why, exactly, does Kahlan have authority? "She's the Mother Confessor' is the only answer. It's an 'inherited right' is another answer. Neither of which are anything but circular reasoning. It must come back to 'she has the power to back it up.'[/quote]
And she does.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']Executing an unarmed messenger is generally considered a rather discourteous act at best. A war crime at worst.[/quote]
Unarmed? I'll grant you "non-threatening", but I think you're stretching things to believe the General was unarmed. And that general, while under the command of the Queen of Galea, was also under the command of the Queen's superior. Desiring (or claiming) to break away from that authority is insufficient to remove the authority.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']So, in order to defend their beliefs of pacifism, they try to stop Richard from enacting violence and he responds with...violence.
Hey, at least it's a realistic portrayal of what happens when tyrants meet pacifists.[/quote]
Have you seen "peace" rallies?

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']Oh, please, Richard even calls it the one moral choice he could have made. If they 'spent significant time hunting down the protesters?' Any good examples of real life evil regimes ever having done that once the protests are good and dispelled?[/quote]
You're missing the point. "Slaughter" implies that killing as many of the protesters as possible was the goal.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']I'll give you a hint:
Those knights were hailed as heroes for saving the day and the battle.[/quote]
In other words, they killed some of the bad guys, and the rest scattered. I bet they even used weapons!

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425006' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.46']It'd be a lot more reasonable than wielding armed weapons to slice them to pieces[/quote]
Why? Dead is dead.

[Lightsnake]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1425100' date='Jul 2 2008, 15.31']Oy.

First of all, legendary chi masters are supposed to be able to perform impossible feats. As a healer, Drefan manipulated his aura (chi) to stop blood flow, even bypass the pain of a spinal injury. He ignored a punch earlier in the book to a nerve center that should have debilitated him to some degree. He modified his breathing and body's reaction to powder Kahlan threw in his face in order to counteract the effects.[/quote]
I want to see some evidence of these so-called 'impossible feats.' This is not a good answer to someone still BREATHING when his stomach and lungs should be collapsing in on themselves
[quote]Secondly, as I've stated multiple times, even to the point of showing the writing issue that caused confusion, Richard did not rip out Drefan's entire spine...he yanked his hand back out, ripping Drefan's spinal column apart in the lumbar region. He would be unable to use his lower body, but with the ability to bypass/ignore the pain (which could take a few moments to attain...thus the short lull in the action), he could gather himself for one last assault, weak and hopeless as it may be. Slumping to the ground is an effect of losing control of everything below the destroyed spine, plus the initial impact of pain (prior to training-based bypassing of the pain).[/quote]
Stop trying to contradict the text. 'Ripping back out' implies pulling something back. . Drefan, also was able to climb to his feet again. His stomach should be filling with blood and fluids, collapsing on itself, his spinal column has been removed....he should not be able to GET UP again
[quote]While it is fantastical, it's (again) not all that unusual a concept.[/quote]
Let's see some real life proof if this isn't 'that unusual
[quote]But if you choose to read and interpret the events in a different way (i.e., the entire spine was ripped out), then you'll not accept the action as possible at all. That's not TG's problem, it's yours.[/quote]
Because it's NOT possible. According to you, we're just refusing to extend our suspension of disbelief. Stop trying to add what's not in the text
[quote]TG's problem is that it wasn't clear enough what was ripped "back out"...the wording was slightly ambiguous. I already showed that it wouldn't have been the spine, so the "it" could only be Richard's hand (referenced in the previous sentence.)[/quote]

There's nothing 'ambiguous.' To 'rip back out' means to pull it with your hand. He Either way, he tore Drefan's spinal columnb apart INSIDE his body? Leaving him with a giant hole, missing spine, with fragments of bone impaling him from the inside? His muscles destroyed, too?

[Lightsnake]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1425132' date='Jul 2 2008, 15.48']Not an Objectivist's rational and moral perspective.[/quote]
Well, it's a good thing Objectivists aren't rational or moral, it seems.

[quote]It was justified as killing those who support and give comfort to the enemy soldiers, those who make their living off of the leavings of the IO army. I don't agree with the logic, but I understand the reasoning.[/quote]
Oh, so slaves and women forced to whore for those soldiers are just 'casualties of war.' No, wait, they're made deliberate target. They're making noncombatants deliberate targets on extremely flimsy grounds. "They killed our pleasure slaves...fight extra harder to get more!"

[quote]Right. Richard and/or Kahlan made it clear that such "spoils of war" were unacceptable.[/quote]
But decapitating slave women is fine? Seeing the gaps in logic?

[quote]I must have missed that part.[/quote]
See when Jebra gives that tearful five chapter monologue
[quote]Out of curiosity...if you dislike the books so much, why would you waste your time reading them?[/quote]
You might call me an ex-fan. I made a promise to some friends to finish the series, though.

[quote]Because the destroying force was itself in fact overcome (that would be Darken Rahl), and the new leader of D'Hara (that would be Richard) supported her position.[/quote]
Sure. But we're going back to the only thing supporting her position is the guy with power

[quote]Secession brings with it its own set of consequences.[/quote]
Of course, but only if it's enforced. Apply this to various other rebellions or secessions throughout history. If it can be backed up, it's legit

[quote]You know feudalism and horsemanship and weaponry, but you don't understand the concept of inherited right to rule?[/quote]
Oh, I understand it. I just think it's an utterly flimsy justification for things.

[quote]No, she is still Mother Confessor. Attempts to separate from the ruling system are just that...attempts.[/quote]
When the Confessors are no longer even there, those attempts could be pretty succesful

[quote]And their refusal earned them consequences.[/quote]
You'd find it hard pressed to argue that widespread butchery of civilians with an intent to throw the queen back to rapists even begins to approach 'justified consequence.' Especially considering the queen is not in her right mind. And this isn't an idle threat. When Harold is dead, Kahlan expresses a clear wish to have Galea destroyed
[quote]What crimes are you jumping to now?[/quote]
Enslaving men from their families and countries, murder of children....
That Confessors destroy volition, which TG claims to hold borderline sacred, that no word of protest is ever leveled against them is bizarre
[quote]Not really...only the ones that were voluntarily working with him.[/quote]
They were accepting his authority...that goes under subservience

[quote]Beats me, but I would assume so for at least murder. The justice system isn't gone into, other than the Seeker being an independent force of justice.[/quote]
You'd think having babies suffocated to death would be a good qualifier...

[quote]And she does.[/quote]
Yes. So you can't blame them for refusing her and triyng to gain independence. She doesn't rule with benevolence or kindness. It's 'do what I say or be destroyed if you don't respect my divine right!'
See the problem?

[quote]Unarmed? I'll grant you "non-threatening", but I think you're stretching things to believe the General was unarmed. And that general, while under the command of the Queen of Galea, was also under the command of the Queen's superior. Desiring (or claiming) to break away from that authority is insufficient to remove the authority.[/quote]
Executing a messenger period, and particularly one who, if he so much as twitched a finger in a threatening manner would have died on the spot, then. That general's queen had ceased to be part of Kahlan's alliance and so he was subject to her and only her. Harold's crime was simply following orders and wanting to protect his home.

[quote]Have you seen "peace" rallies?[/quote]
Yes. They typically don't end in total brutality, though, as heated as they are.

[quote]You're missing the point. "Slaughter" implies that killing as many of the protesters as possible was the goal.[/quote]
No, all it implied is a bunch of them were, well....slaughtered.

[quote]In other words, they killed some of the bad guys, and the rest scattered. I bet they even used weapons![/quote]
I'd hesitate to call the knights 'good guys' and the Muslim forces 'bad guy.' And they were indeed driven off by a straight cavalry charge. Problem is, to begin slicing away is kind of excessive with an unarmed mob.
[quote]Why? Dead is dead.[/quote]
One can make the effort to minimize casualties...it'd show some thought.

[Kheldar]

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425007' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.47']Good and evil are a matter of perspective. To them, violence was evil and that's what Richard represented.[/quote]
Right...so they opposed Richard's violence in a passive-aggressive manner, and were "shocked" to discover that Richard would attack them if necessary.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425007' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.47']That's what we call a 'strawman' from Goodkind[/quote]
How is that a strawman? There really are people who believe that any violence, even in self-defense, is evil.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425007' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.47']Please. Learn about horsemanship in war. Richard had a sizeable force. Frankly, if it was anything less, the people wouldn't have scattered.[/quote]
He didn't have a bunch of heavy cavalry.

And a smaller force with weapons can easily scatter a larger force without weapons. Were those that were fleeing hunted down and killed? That would be slaughter.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425007' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.47']Hasty Generalization, False Dilemma...those come to mind.[/quote]
It's not a hasty generalization....no where do I make an unsupported leap in logic....I didn't say all JWs would stand between me and dialysis, just that a group were.

False dilemma is closer, but there are times when there really only two choices. But that's a failing of TG's story (I would have tried to sneak through the crowd in some way, instead of attacking), not my analogy.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425007' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.47']As it was enough to make the crowds scatter screaming, it would seem quite a few[/quote]
That's not an answer.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425007' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.47']Please provide an example of that.[/quote]
I'll find some for you in a bit. Some quick ones: The description of Drefan's spine damage. Richard's assault to get through the peace protesters. Kahlan's authority (or lack thereof) based on the system of government in place in the Midlands (and then, later, under the D'Haran Empire).

You're constantly twisting things from the books, trying to make them say things they don't.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425007' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.47']No, 'mass slaughter' would refer to a bunch of people slaughtered in mass. Don't use an appeal to emotion by throwing out the German death camps (Godwin's Law in action, I see), because yes, it DID involve slaughter. A mass killing of unarmed people would also involve slaughter[/quote]
A) "Mass" refers to a bunch of people. "Slaughter" refers to how they were killed. I'm not taking exception to the "mass" (although it's arguable, since you haven't provided a number or even a description of "countless" bodies.)...I'm disagreeing with "slaughter.
B) I'm not appealing to emotion.
C) Godwin's Law isn't met...I'm not comparing anyone to Germans, merely looking for an application of "slaughter". Godwin's Law would be something like "The Imperial Order made women wear lip rings, just like the Nazi's made Jews wear yellow stars. Therefore the IO is evil. I win!"

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425007' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.47']They'd want me to not eat pork and save my soul. I'm using such an analogy to show why yours with the JWs was highly flawed[/quote]
And you complain that my analogy was pathetic?

If you were starving to death, and the only thing on hand to eat was some pork, and some Muslims were preventing you from eating the pork in order to save your soul, and you were going to die in the next 5 hours if you didn't get food (you must have clean water, apparently), and there's no way you're going to get any other food in the next 5 hours...are they innocent if they stop you? If their actions will lead to your death, don't you have the right to fight for your life?

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425007' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.47']What WAS the message then? Because I find his setup and communication of it contemptible[/quote]
Overall...that Objectivism is the best philosophy.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425007' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.47']But he was comfortable forcing them to sacrifice their lives for his. So?[/quote]
The chose to be there. They didn't have to gather in front of Nicholas' palace, but he (as far as he knew) had no option other than to get the antidote from the palace if he was going to live.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425007' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.47']As opposed to wasting resources converting or defending them when Richard's made it abundantly clear earlier in the series that something like this WERE wastes of time and resource[/quote]
Unless the land had tactical military value. It would split the New World in half, dividing the forces. Tactically, it was desirable for the Imperial Order to take Galea...therefore it was tactically desirable for Richard's forces to keep the Imperial Order out of Galea.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425007' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.47']Who no longer has any actual authority once his superior stops listening. and under such a system, he's only supposed to listen to his direct superior.[/quote]
If Jean-Jacques Brot declared that Guadeloupe was no longer under French control, and the Guadeloupe soldiers (technically French) supported him, would France be right in declaring not only Mr. Brot, but the commanding general to be traitors?

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425007' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.47']Execution implies after some process of law. Seems contradicting the Mother Confessor is OK if[/quote]
Process of law: Zedd declared him to be a traitor. The others present concurred. Somebody killed him. It's not much of a process, but it was there. But this is a matter of how the justice system is set up in the Midlands...it's not the same as modern western courts.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425007' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.47']Endlessly parroting your earlier phrases don't make them more valid. As we've covered, and you've ceased to argue how the Mother Confessor has any power, because my reason[/quote]
Endlessly ignoring the fact won't make your point any more valid. I disagree with the killing of Harold, but I don't agree that he was somehow no longer under Kahlan's command.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425007' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.47']Irrelevant. Under such a feudal system, Harold is sworn to his sister who is seceding from Kahlan's authority.[/quote]
In which case Harold has to make a decision...which ruler is the right one to obey?

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425007' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.47']Give me a reason why Kahlan has any authority and we can continue on this note. Frankly, if it was this simple, we'd never have mutinites or uprising.[/quote]
Give me a reason that the Queen has any authority.

[quote name='Lightsnake' post='1425007' date='Jul 2 2008, 14.47']Also, on that note: Kheldar, a human cannot move like that without a spine. once you rip a spinal column out and the person collapses, that is it. Their control of their legs and their arms is gone...Drefan's stomach is open, his spine is severed...he should be dead instantly...being able to STAND AGAIN, let alone swing or HOLD a sword?[/quote]
I don't recall him standing...but it's been a while. But I've done this one to death. The spine was not removed...it was destroyed in the lumbar region...such destruction would impact lower body function, not upper body (that's in the cervical and thoracic areas of the spine). Master Healer Drefan has knowledge on how to control his body functions, even ignore pain and slow the flow of blood, to gain him a little time...perhaps enough to get in one final attack.

Had Drefan somehow survived, he would have been a paraplegic, not a quadriplegic. Holding and swinging a sword is perfectly possible if ones spine is still intact past the thoracic region...it might be difficult, and not extremely powerful, but it is possible....and it might be powerful enough.

[Lightsnake]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1425195' date='Jul 2 2008, 16.26']Right...so they opposed Richard's violence in a passive-aggressive manner, and were "shocked" to discover that Richard would attack them if necessary.[/quote]
They assumed Richard would be humane and not kill unarmed people and were shocked when proven wrong?
Not a stirring defense for Dick Rahl

[quote]How is that a strawman? There really are people who believe that any violence, even in self-defense, is evil.[/quote]
Yes, they are written in a manner to provide a hyper naive version of pacifists for Richard's logic to defeat. That is a strawman

[quote]He didn't have a bunch of heavy cavalry.

And a smaller force with weapons can easily scatter a larger force without weapons. Were those that were fleeing hunted down and killed? That would be slaughter.[/quote]
You seem to be confused on what constitutes slaughter. It's not to do with intent.
And he had a bunch of men on horses. Cavalry enough.
[quote]It's not a hasty generalization....no where do I make an unsupported leap in logic....I didn't say all JWs would stand between me and dialysis, just that a group were.[/quote] hum
That's a pretty damn hasty generalization, since JWs don't tend to do that to other groups. False analogy fits to a T though

[quote]False dilemma is closer, but there are times when there really only two choices. But that's a failing of TG's story (I would have tried to sneak through the crowd in some way, instead of attacking), not my analogy.[/quote]
Well, if you can admit Terry didn't write this scene well at all, alright.
And yes, there are times when there are just cold equations. This was easily not one of them, considering the godly ability Richard has shown to convince/sneak through things
[quote]That's not an answer.[/quote]
Richard didn't have a big force. As they scattered almost immediately, he didn't need one.

[quote]I'll find some for you in a bit. Some quick ones: The description of Drefan's spine damage. Richard's assault to get through the peace protesters. Kahlan's authority (or lack thereof) based on the system of government in place in the Midlands (and then, later, under the D'Haran Empire).[/quote]
There's no 'twisting' to be done there. You are providing arguments, I'm providing rebuttals.
It's only 'twisting' if I'm intentionally misconstruing what you or the text has said and am subjecting it to a strawman argument. I am not doing that.

[quote]You're constantly twisting things from the books, trying to make them say things they don't.[/quote]
If they mean something different, it's odd that they say what I've said.
The entire argument for 'why must they listen to Kahlan?'
"She's the mother Confessor."
"Why?"
"She's the Mother Confessor."
See the problem?


[quote]A) "Mass" refers to a bunch of people. "Slaughter" refers to how they were killed. I'm not taking exception to the "mass" (although it's arguable, since you haven't provided a number or even a description of "countless" bodies.)...I'm disagreeing with "slaughter.[/quote]
No, slaughter refers to that they WERE killed. Richard's soldiers fell upon them. That's a mass killing. Using the Websters definition, a definition for slaughter is 'to kill in numbers.'

[quote]B) I'm not appealing to emotion.[/quote]
Using the German death camps? That's an appeal to emotion
[quote]C) Godwin's Law isn't met...I'm not comparing anyone to Germans, merely looking for an application of "slaughter". Godwin's Law would be something like "The Imperial Order made women wear lip rings, just like the Nazi's made Jews wear yellow stars. Therefore the IO is evil. I win!"[/quote]
Using the German Death Camps there is pretty close to an application for Godwin's Law and was made with intention to end that point.

[quote]And you complain that my analogy was pathetic?[/quote]
Why yes. Yes I do. My intentionally poor analogy does not make your unintentionally poor analogy less poor
[quote]If you were starving to death, and the only thing on hand to eat was some pork, and some Muslims were preventing you from eating the pork in order to save your soul, and you were going to die in the next 5 hours if you didn't get food (you must have clean water, apparently), and there's no way you're going to get any other food in the next 5 hours...are they innocent if they stop you? If their actions will lead to your death, don't you have the right to fight for your life?[/quote]
Please stop the really badly constructed situations. There is practically no reason in the world you would let yourself go to the point where you are surrounded by Muslims with only pork to eat with no other solutions.

[quote]Overall...that Objectivism is the best philosophy.[/quote]
No wonder it's contemptible then.

[quote]The chose to be there. They didn't have to gather in front of Nicholas' palace, but he (as far as he knew) had no option other than to get the antidote from the palace if he was going to live.[/quote]
Well, Richard and his people 'chose' to fight against the Imperial Order. By this logic, they reap the consequences. Why does this consequence stuff never apply to the heroes of this story?

[quote]Unless the land had tactical military value. It would split the New World in half, dividing the forces. Tactically, it was desirable for the Imperial Order to take Galea...therefore it was tactically desirable for Richard's forces to keep the Imperial Order out of Galea.[/quote]
Oh, sure. Of course, that doesn't explain why Kahlan is ready to annihilate it in retribution and let the IO have it.
Kahlan's tactical abilities leave a bit to be desired.

[Lightsnake]

[quote]If Jean-Jacques Brot declared that Guadeloupe was no longer under French control, and the Guadeloupe soldiers (technically French) supported him, would France be right in declaring not only Mr. Brot, but the commanding general to be traitors?[/quote]
"Treason is a charge invented by the winners as an excuse for hanging the losers." In the long run, many treasons are referred to as 'revolutions.' It all depends if Monsieur Brot can back it up and keep said freedom, would it not?
Or politically win it, which is another matter.

[quote]Process of law: Zedd declared him to be a traitor. The others present concurred. Somebody killed him. It's not much of a process, but it was there. But this is a matter of how the justice system is set up in the Midlands...it's not the same as modern western courts.[/quote]Zedd, Warren, Verna and Adie have absolute authority, reducing this alliance to what is essentially a military dictatorship ruled by a small oligarchy of wizards? Oh, yeah, that seems a GREAT way for deciding things.
That's not 'process of law,' that's 'summary execution' and there's nothing 'modern' about it, the right to a trial has been around in the west since the 1200s. You don't get a trial if someone judges you to be guilty and a few people around agree.

[quote]Endlessly ignoring the fact won't make your point any more valid. I disagree with the killing of Harold, but I don't agree that he was somehow no longer under Kahlan's command.[/quote]
Tell me how Kahlan has authority. That she's 'The Mother Confessor' means nothing when they're refusing her authority. Unless she could militarily retake Galea, for that time, they were no longer subject to her authority.

[quote]In which case Harold has to make a decision...which ruler is the right one to obey?[/quote]
I think the one whose tactical ability isn't 'make a naked, aroused charge into the numerically superior force and is the latest incarnation of a female oligarchy that has tyrannically ruled our lands for centuries' is the better bet.
And it'd be nice of Kahlan and the others to actually convince him with their superior logic skills rather than threaten to have his beloved sister horribly raped.

[quote]Give me a reason that the Queen has any authority.[/quote]
The people accept it and she has the military to enforce it. This is a bit different to Kahlan's clamoring how she's the Mother Confessor with nothing more than that from Wizard's First Rule on

[quote]I don't recall him standing...but it's been a while. But I've done this one to death. The spine was not removed...it was destroyed in the lumbar region...such destruction would impact lower body function, not upper body[/quote]
You are taking your own very vague wording to apply it here. Richard grabs Drefan's spine, 'tears it back out, ripping it apart.' Nothing says the spinal column was left inside
Drefan rises, attempts to attack and fails. Just try swinging a sword while you're on the ground with no abdomen and nothing below the legs.

[quote](that's in the cervical and thoracic areas of the spine). Master Healer Drefan has knowledge on how to control his body functions, even ignore pain and slow the flow of blood, to gain him a little time...perhaps enough to get in one final attack.[/quote]
There's no 'time' there. His muscles and his spine are gone. His stomach has collapsed on itself, his inner body is impaled with fragments of bone. It doesn't matter if he can't feel pain or slow the flow of blood since he's got nothing to attack with. This alone would rend his entire nervous system apart
[quote]Had Drefan somehow survived, he would have been a paraplegic, not a quadriplegic. Holding and swinging a sword is perfectly possible if ones spine is still intact past the thoracic region...it might be difficult, and not extremely powerful, but it is possible....and it might be powerful enough.[/quote] If the spine is torn apart, this implies not just a break, but there is no longer anything tear. He should not have the strength to STAND AND SWING, even weakly. This should be an immediate killing blow.
It's not 'possible' and I advise you learn a bit about human biology as well. Considering some members of my family are doctors, I have a bit of an insight here.

[Arthmail]

I once ripped a man's spine in half in a bar fight. That man was Bowie/Myshkin, which is why he is the spineless twerp he is now.

As a side note, i have already stated my dislike for objectivism. The rest of Goodkind's politics are equally stupid. I'm sorry folks, but i have seen no instances of medieval ultra-pacifists. No philosophical program of rejecting violence between states, or rejecting all forms of violence, seems to have existed, though in ancient Greece there was some instances of rejecting violence between individuals...which would be more in line with keeping civil order than displaying philosophical ideals about non-violence.

You could say, well, it is a fantasy novel of Goodkind's creation, he can do as he pleases. Except that he gives no indication that there has been any serious political thought, or strains of philosophical thought, pertaining to the idea of pacifism within his world. It was simply an anti-intellectual way of positing his own philosophical love affair with objectivism. Perhaps i am too much of a perfectionist here, but when postulating that a certain group of people think a certain way within a defined fantasy world (or even if this were historical fiction), i need to know how such a thing came about. Even if only briefly. Otherwise its simply deux ex machina of the political sense.

By the way, Khel, your damned smarmy avatar has pushed me over the threshhold. If the newspaper tomorrow reads tha Sting killed Father Ted, do not be surprised.

[DanteGabriel]

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1425434' date='Jul 2 2008, 18.56']By the way, Khel, your damned smarmy avatar has pushed me over the threshhold. If the newspaper tomorrow reads tha Sting killed Father Ted, do not be surprised.[/quote]
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermot_Morgan"]He's[/url] already dead. :cry:

[Myshkin]

I once kicked a man in the jaw, shattering his teeth and severing his tongue. That man was Sting/Arthmail, which is why he is the the whiny wimp he is now.

Kheldar, I'd like to remind you that you are in a new arena (so to speak) now. This is not TG.net, where anything you say, no matter how ridiculous, will be backed up by your friends. Here if you make a statement of fact we expect you to provide evidence of it's factual nature.

[Aemon Stark]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1425195' date='Jul 2 2008, 16.26']I don't recall him standing...but it's been a while. But I've done this one to death. The spine was not removed...it was destroyed in the lumbar region...such destruction would impact lower body function, not upper body (that's in the cervical and thoracic areas of the spine). Master Healer Drefan has knowledge on how to control his body functions, even ignore pain and slow the flow of blood, to gain him a little time...perhaps enough to get in one final attack.

Had Drefan somehow survived, he would have been a paraplegic, not a quadriplegic. Holding and swinging a sword is perfectly possible if ones spine is still intact past the thoracic region...it might be difficult, and not extremely powerful, but it is possible....and it might be powerful enough.[/quote]

So, did Richard pull out part of Drefan's spine from the front or the back? Do you have any idea what kind of additional trauma that would inflict? Setting aside that this would require a rather large hole (a "gaping wound", if you will), the damage to other nearby organs (kidneys, intestines, etc.) would pretty much have to be severe enough to cause sufficient bleeding to kill Drefan in a very short time. Ignoring the excruciating pain, any attempt at movement would just make things a good deal worse.

Of course, you're welcome to use the Fantasy Explanation for why this was possible, though I don't really buy that body functions that have been destroyed by severe injury can be "controlled" in any way. (Unless SoT is simply in the Temple of Doom universe, where someone can survive having their still-beating heart pulled out of their chest)

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='Werthead' post='1424718' date='Jul 2 2008, 11.19']Regarding spineless combat:

I'm not as well-versed in the field as BrantheBuilder, but I have seen some reenactments in my time and had to study up on the subject for a History degree, and the situation as Goodkind describes it can be called 'nonsensical' or, perhaps more accurately, 'totally batshit insane'. However, it should be pointed out that we are regarding the situation with the rules from our world. In Dick Rahl's world, it may well be that 'humans' are biologically different from those of our world and may have secondary nerve-transmission systems that allow continued movement after the spine is removed/destroyed/disabled, as well as pain-abeyance systems that prevent someone from screaming in agony from just having had their spinal column severed, not to mention mental conditioning that deflects the shock and catatonia that such an event would entail, and allowing them to focus their remaining body strength for one last swing before succumbing.[/quote]

You giggled like a schoolgirl the entire time you typed that didn't you?

[MinDonner]

We seem to be getting tangled up in trying to argue the actions of TG's characters while still in the warped logic of TG's universe. This could be problematic.. Going back to our "pacifists" (seeing as no-one responded to my first post on the subject), let's ask ourselves WHY there was a huge crowd of pacifists blocking Richard from his antidote.

Was it because they hated violence? Because they hated Richard? Because they supported Nicholas? No, no and no.

They were there because [i]TG put them there[/i]. The author saw fit to write in a scene where his hero had to cut his way through unarmed men and women in order to survive.

Was this to show the horrors of war, and the terrible things even good guys have to do in order to win? Well, no; Richard never seems particularly bothered by it, and in fact the "pacifists" are described as an ugly crowd of borderline-violent morons, armed with their hatred for moral clarity, and Richard's actions are described as entirely justified. No, this entire scene was written to show that pacifism=wrong, and that sometimes it's perfectly OK to hack your way through a crowd with your big sword, if you have Reason on your side. The scene didn't have to be written, and it didn't have to be written the way it was, but as it stands, it's an unpleasant indictment of TG's attitudes and one of the main reasons I despise his books.

Oh, and citing peace rallies as an example is disingenuous at best. There's a big, big difference between "Nuclear weapons are bad" or "I don't support this illegal war" and "I refuse to use any violence ever".

[Falagar]

[quote name='Myshkin' post='1425573' date='Jul 2 2008, 20.49']Kheldar, I'd like to remind you that you are in a new arena (so to speak) now. This is not TG.net, where anything you say, no matter how ridiculous, will be backed up by your friends. Here if you make a statement of fact we expect you to provide evidence of it's factual nature.[/quote]
Please. I'm not a fan of Goodkind and dislike objectivism as much as the next guy, but this is a pretty stupid line of attack. Both Kheldar and addictive has been arguing and trying to back up their statements in this thread, an effort which I applaud, though I mostly disagree with their logic. Attacking tg.net and the debate-culture there while all the time asserting this board's supremacy isn't going to get this anywhere and only serves to inflame the debate.

[Jaxom 1974]

[quote name='Kheldar' post='1424615' date='Jul 2 2008, 10.32']The bad writing has to do with the pronouns.

"Before the sword could touch him, Richard struck like lightning, driving his hand through Defran's soft middle. In the blink of an eye, he had seized Defran's spinal column and yanked it (Richard's hand) back out, ripping it (Drefan's spinal column) apart.
Defran pitched backward, crashing against the sliph's well, slumping down in a spreading, crimson flood."[/quote]

I'm afraid I cannot agree with you that it's simply a matter of pronouns.

You're laying that on the feet of Mr. Goodkind's editor, who would know better (one would hope). Irregardless, even if one assumes the spine has not been removed completely (as it says in the text), it also says that Richard "ripped it apart". And then, spineless, Defran slumped down. As a result, for him to have attacked Richard would have meant he'd have to stand up and move.

No matter how much you try to put forth this "chi" idea, something I don't think is supported by the text, it still doesn't wash. I admit I could be wrong, but I believe marshalling one's chi requires using the brain and, as a result, the spinal column to send those brain signals to the body. As the spinal column is the super-highway of the nervous system, no spine means no sending info.

[Rakehell]

Giving the benefit of the doubt, let's say, OK, Richard didn't actually pull Drefan's spine out, he just grabbed it and then let go. And further, let's say Drefan is an OMG-uber-healer-chi-master who can keep his body functioning after having a rather large hole put in it. And even further, let's say he has some sort of mental, though not physical, shock so that he picks up a sword and takes one last swing at Richard, rather than using his last energy to heal himself. And still further yet, let's say Drefan can completely ignore the weakness that would occur from blood loss and hydrostatic shock that the aforementioned hole would cause such that he can swing a sword with enough force to present a serious threat to Richard.

Let's let all that go and back up just a bit. Our hero just stuck his hand through a guy's abdomen. Did they bring Sonny Chiba in to play the part of Richard for this scene or something? This is just insane. I can't help but think that the amount of force necessary to penetrate the stomach muscles with something as blunt as a fingertip would also be sufficient to break pretty much every bone in the hand and wrist doing the penetrating.

Once you've accepted that Richard can pull that off, the rest of the Drefan stuff becomes secondary.

[Kheldar]

[quote name='Aemon Stark' post='1425671' date='Jul 2 2008, 22.41']So, did Richard pull out part of Drefan's spine from the front or the back?[/quote]
Front. One wouldn't need to punch through the soft tissue of the stomach if attacking from the back.

[quote name='Aemon Stark' post='1425671' date='Jul 2 2008, 22.41']Do you have any idea what kind of additional trauma that would inflict?[/quote]
Lots. Displacement and rupture of abdominal organs. The intestines would suffer the most direct damage, but the stomach, pancreas, liver, and other organs would be displaced. Severing of many blood vessels...not sure about any major arteries, though. The kidneys may shift some, but given their location to the sides near the back, I wouldn't expect them to be major.

[quote name='Aemon Stark' post='1425671' date='Jul 2 2008, 22.41']Setting aside that this would require a rather large hole (a "gaping wound", if you will), the damage to other nearby organs (kidneys, intestines, etc.) would pretty much have to be severe enough to cause sufficient bleeding to kill Drefan in a very short time.[/quote]
A "very short time" is not "instantly". Given a type of legendary skill as a healer (I'm not going to cite real world examples of legends, thanks), it's possible that somebody could extend that "very short time" into "enough time to get in one last attack."

If the knowledge and training is there (again, based on legend), is it all that hard to imagine the following steps?
1. Victim mentally blocks out pain.
2. Victim targets key nerve nodes on his own body to numb the pain (there won't be any pain from the point of break down, so it'd be limited to the upper lower body)
3. Victim reduces the flow of blood to the lower body (how, I don't know...but I also don't know how to focus chi or align chakras).

If no major arteries are damaged, a stomach wound can take a long time to kill somebody.

[quote name='Aemon Stark' post='1425671' date='Jul 2 2008, 22.41']Ignoring the excruciating pain, any attempt at movement would just make things a good deal worse.[/quote]
If the pain isn't an issue, and the poor bastard is going to die anyway, does making it worse really matter?

[quote name='Aemon Stark' post='1425671' date='Jul 2 2008, 22.41']Of course, you're welcome to use the Fantasy Explanation for why this was possible, though I don't really buy that body functions that have been destroyed by severe injury can be "controlled" in any way. (Unless SoT is simply in the Temple of Doom universe, where someone can survive having their still-beating heart pulled out of their chest)[/quote]
Nerve nodes higher up on the body can be targeted to numb the lower body. Blood vessels that feed the lower body can be constricted (if one can accept that such control can exist), slowing the blood loss.

[quote name='MinDonner' post='1425903' date='Jul 3 2008, 04.42']We seem to be getting tangled up in trying to argue the actions of TG's characters while still in the warped logic of TG's universe. This could be problematic.. Going back to our "pacifists" (seeing as no-one responded to my first post on the subject), let's ask ourselves WHY there was a huge crowd of pacifists blocking Richard from his antidote.[/quote]
Because of their complete rejection of violence. They chose to stand between two people/groups of people who seemed to be intent on violent action, in the hopes/belief that their presence would prevent particular violence (i.e., Richard attacking Nicholas). It didn't matter that such violence would end Nicholas' ongoing violence.

[quote name='MinDonner' post='1425903' date='Jul 3 2008, 04.42']Was it because they hated violence? Because they hated Richard? Because they supported Nicholas? No, no and no.[/quote]
Yes, no, and no.

[quote name='MinDonner' post='1425903' date='Jul 3 2008, 04.42']They were there because [i]TG put them there[/i]. The author saw fit to write in a scene where his hero had to cut his way through unarmed men and women in order to survive.[/quote]
Right. TG put them there. He wrote the Bandakar such that they are extreme pacifists who hated violence. Their lack of weapons doesn't matter.

[quote name='MinDonner' post='1425903' date='Jul 3 2008, 04.42']Was this to show the horrors of war, and the terrible things even good guys have to do in order to win? Well, no; Richard never seems particularly bothered by it, and in fact the "pacifists" are described as an ugly crowd of borderline-violent morons, armed with their hatred for moral clarity, and Richard's actions are described as entirely justified.[/quote]
From an Objectivist PoV, his actions were justified.

[quote name='MinDonner' post='1425903' date='Jul 3 2008, 04.42']No, this entire scene was written to show that pacifism=wrong, and that sometimes it's perfectly OK to hack your way through a crowd with your big sword, if you have Reason on your side.[/quote]
No, it wasn't. The scene was written to show other things.
1. Inability or unwillingness to label people as "good" and "evil" can lead one to protect evil from good. The pacifists protected Nicholas from Richard.
2. Those who choose to ignore the "evilness" of others, and therefore protect the evil, are complicit in the evil. The pacifists' protection of Nicholas allowed Nicholas to continue his evil acts.
3. Sometimes violence is necessary. Absolute pacifism allows evil to continue.

Now, you can argue that Richard is evil if you want.

[quote name='MinDonner' post='1425903' date='Jul 3 2008, 04.42']The scene didn't have to be written, and it didn't have to be written the way it was[/quote]
Of course not. Author's prerogative.

[quote name='MinDonner' post='1425903' date='Jul 3 2008, 04.42']but as it stands, it's an unpleasant indictment of TG's attitudes and one of the main reasons I despise his books.[/quote]
Fine. Don't read his books. I'm not here trying to change your mind about the books. I listed some of the reasons I'm here in the first thread.

[quote name='MinDonner' post='1425903' date='Jul 3 2008, 04.42']Oh, and citing peace rallies as an example is disingenuous at best. There's a big, big difference between "Nuclear weapons are bad" or "I don't support this illegal war" and "I refuse to use any violence ever".[/quote]
Not disingenuous, merely an example of "peace protesters" using limited violence. Even Ghandi's followers, on occasion, resorted to violence.

Besides, TG included instances where force (which some ultra-pacifists would label "violence") was used by the Bandakar...namely, in how they handled people who didn't follow the ultra-pacifist ideals. As gently as possible, restrain the person (even if that person kills some of the restraining party). Hold them captive, reeducate them if possible. If not possible, peacefully make them leave (somehow).

[quote name='Falagar' post='1425974' date='Jul 3 2008, 06.57']Please. I'm not a fan of Goodkind and dislike objectivism as much as the next guy, but this is a pretty stupid line of attack. Both Kheldar and addictive has been arguing and trying to back up their statements in this thread, an effort which I applaud, though I mostly disagree with their logic.[/quote]
Out of curiosity, with what logic do you disagree? I've tried to argue many of the points from an Objectivist viewpoint, but I don't share that position. There are justifications for certain actions by the main characters with which I disagree...but I argued them from the Objectivist PoV as well as I could.

[quote name='Falagar' post='1425974' date='Jul 3 2008, 06.57']Attacking tg.net and the debate-culture there while all the time asserting this board's supremacy isn't going to get this anywhere and only serves to inflame the debate.[/quote]
Besides which, it won't have it's intended effect. I refuse to make this about the boards in any way. But thank you for posting this response...it would have had less effect coming from me.

[Kheldar]

[quote name='Jaxom 1974' post='1426082' date='Jul 3 2008, 09.18']You're laying that on the feet of Mr. Goodkind's editor, who would know better (one would hope).[/quote]
Editors make mistakes, too.

[quote name='Jaxom 1974' post='1426082' date='Jul 3 2008, 09.18']Irregardless, even if one assumes the spine has not been removed completely (as it says in the text), it also says that Richard "ripped it apart".[/quote]
Ripped apart doesn't necessarily mean "destroyed from top to bottom". It's ripped apart at the point where Richard grabbed the spine...in the lumbar region.

[quote name='Jaxom 1974' post='1426082' date='Jul 3 2008, 09.18']And then, spineless, Defran slumped down. As a result, for him to have attacked Richard would have meant he'd have to stand up and move.[/quote]
It doesn't say he was spineless...merely that he slumped down. Loss of the use of ones legs as a result of a broken/destroyed spinal column in the lumbar region would do that.

As to standing up and moving, that's not necessary. If Richard thought Drefan was dead, he could stand too close to the "body".

If TG wrote that Drefan somehow stood (and I can't check that), then that would be a major flaw in that scene.

[quote name='Jaxom 1974' post='1426082' date='Jul 3 2008, 09.18']No matter how much you try to put forth this "chi" idea, something I don't think is supported by the text, it still doesn't wash. I admit I could be wrong, but I believe marshalling one's chi requires using the brain and, as a result, the spinal column to send those brain signals to the body. As the spinal column is the super-highway of the nervous system, no spine means no sending info.[/quote]
You're stuck on this idea that the spinal column was completely removed/destroyed. Consider how things could work if the only part that was "ripped apart" was in the lumbar area of the spine.

[quote name='Rakehell' post='1426133' date='Jul 3 2008, 10.14']Giving the benefit of the doubt, let's say, OK, Richard didn't actually pull Drefan's spine out, he just grabbed it and then let go.[/quote]
He ripped out the part behind the abdomen. Lower body function would end, but upper body functions (if one can get past the pain of having a huge hole in one's abdomen) would still exist.

[quote name='Rakehell' post='1426133' date='Jul 3 2008, 10.14']And further, let's say Drefan is an OMG-uber-healer-chi-master who can keep his body functioning after having a rather large hole put in it.[/quote]
Just long enough for a last, desperate, attack.

[quote name='Rakehell' post='1426133' date='Jul 3 2008, 10.14']And even further, let's say he has some sort of mental, though not physical, shock so that he picks up a sword and takes one last swing at Richard, rather than using his last energy to heal himself.[/quote]
He was beyond healing without magic. Mental conditioning is what would allow him to ignore the pain.

[quote name='Rakehell' post='1426133' date='Jul 3 2008, 10.14']And still further yet, let's say Drefan can completely ignore the weakness that would occur from blood loss and hydrostatic shock that the aforementioned hole would cause such that he can swing a sword with enough force to present a serious threat to Richard.[/quote]
Swords, while not as sharp as movies would portray, aren't as dull as a spoon. My can-opener isn't uber-sharp, but I bet I could smack it through flesh. Anyone with a sword and enough muscle can take a swing at somebody...and on an unsuspecting target, that swing could be fatal. Hit some soft tissue, say the throat, and it could kill without breaking the skin.

[quote name='Rakehell' post='1426133' date='Jul 3 2008, 10.14']Let's let all that go and back up just a bit. Our hero just stuck his hand through a guy's abdomen. Did they bring Sonny Chiba in to play the part of Richard for this scene or something? This is just insane. I can't help but think that the amount of force necessary to penetrate the stomach muscles with something as blunt as a fingertip would also be sufficient to break pretty much every bone in the hand and wrist doing the penetrating.[/quote]
Soft tissue. He's not grabbing the femoral artery, the muscles, if not tightened, would part...especially since there isn't bone behind them. I'm not saying it would be easy, and it definitely is a fantastical/legendary type of feat.

[url="http://youtube.com/watch?v=_TKe5rBJeYc"]But so is a guy lying on a bed of nails letting somebody break a cinder block on his stomach with a sledge hammer.[/url]

[MinDonner]

Throat, eyes, soft tissue... how long is this sword, exactly? You do remember that Drefan's lying on the floor, don't you? And we know that Richard is taller than most men.