Bakustra wrote:So you think that I'm a coward because I'm not willing to subject myself to your headache-inducing format known as "point-by-point debate", or as I like to call it, "julienned debate".
You are aware of board culture and debating rules right? The gutless coward refuses to do point by point so he can do giant strawmen distortions, AM I RITE.
Well, I'm not sure how to respond to that. Much like Goodkind's works, it bespeaks of an alien logic foreign to the world we live in.
Translation, I don't have to debate points I can't respond to. Look at me. Oh look Bakustra is so special he doesn't have to address what someone says.
See, you're trying to defend it as being something other than terrible.
I defend one part of it. Apparently it equates to defending all. Dumbass. Despite the fact that you must have read my criticisms of Goodkind's work, of which there were more negative ones than positive.
So you have to account for the fact that it implies arousal on Richard's part or admit that it's poorly written because of that.
You know what, instead of me saying I didn't tried to defend this part (since I don't actually remember all of the book because its been a while its pointless me trying to defend a passage I don't remember), I want you to quote the relevant passage instead of me just providing all the evidence. Let you do some work for a change.
So I assumed that when you defend the writing in general, as you have been doing, and as you will deny that you have done, because you yourself have a hard-on of your own for this crappy series, that you were trying to justify all of it.
Since I kind of made MORE negative criticisms of Goodkind's writing than positive ones, how they hell do you justified that I "defend the writing in general". Can you not count properly? But you know what. You just jerked off with the Goodkind SUXS brigade and when I called you out on one particular aspect you just tried to manufacture a giant strawman, that I defend the worse parts of Goodkind's writing because it easier to debate.
But instead, you dance around it, insisting that I prove that you intended to justify pedophilic implications while simultaneously saying that it's not crappy writing.
Lets take a trip down memory lane
earlier Bakustra wrote:She's an eight-year-old,
you moron. She doesn't really understand what she's saying or what that means, and it still doesn't justify kicking her in the jaw so hard it slices her fucking tongue off. Even if it was a twenty-year-old and it were the ONLY WAY TO STOP THE BOMB, JACK BAUER (
),
it still wouldn't justify getting a hard-on about it.
So unless you refer calling someone else a moron, yes, you did accuse me of defending Goodkind's paedophile writing. Now back up your claim that I did or concede coward.
Well, I have a challenge of my own. Explain why unintentionally implying your protagonist to be a pedophile is good writing,or at the very least not terrible writing. That is essential to making this passage anything other than terrible, since you have to deal with all the factors that make it shoddy.
Another strawman. Hey moron, I said Richard defending himself and his loved ones isn't bad. I also said your statement that someone with the means and will to threaten someone is more than just "talking shit".
I didn't comment on the paedophile thing since I don't remember the passage. Kind of hard to defend something you don't remember, no. And even if it was, I wouldn't defend it because its indefensible. Duh. And once
again you accuse me of defending the paedophile thing but then say, oh no I didn't accuse you of that.
So once again under debating rule 5 prove I defended the paedophile part of Goodkind's writing.
You're outright delusional about your "sociopath" comment, since you used it to defend your claims that the child had a clear moral understanding of what she was doing and that she was irredeemably evil and all that, along with simply making shit up in order to defend your torture fantasies (that is a genuine insult, by the way.
I know you are stupid, so I will explain it very very very slowly for you. The sociopath comment is an insult moron as I stated previously. The main point is that Richard was defending himself and his loved ones and from the perspective of "removing the threat" it was justified. If removing the threat leads to greater utility its morally justifiable regardless of whether that threat is criminally culpable. For example (not analogy, an example) we kill rabid animals to protect ourselves, but I don't see you protesting that the animals don't understand what they are doing. I bet you are going to create a strawman and say I compare a human being to an animal, AM I RITE?
You should probably take a picture or make a sketch so you can remember what one looks like). So if you want to claim that mutilating her is not only a moral outcome, but in fact the moral outcome. This is ridiculous even under your distorted thought experiment.
So come up with how Richard should stop the torture without mutilating her body after being fucking tortured and in chains. I have challenged you to do this but like the gutless coward you run away. I have said that you could make a case for subduing her without maiming you could say its morally better. But in that situation you cannot. But like the coward you are you refuse to even acknowledge this point and keep on avoiding it. Why is that I wonder.
Let's break your thought experiment down. Yes, if you are in a situation where God has beamed knowledge directly into your head that you must break this little girl's jaw and slice her tongue in half in order to save the life of yourself and your girlfriend. In real life, as opposed to the moral universe you inhabit, though, we are not so gifted as to have perfect knowledge of each situation.
You know, when the opponent has to rely on "no one has perfect knowledge", a common creationist version of arguing from ignorance btw, you know they are very weak.
In the actual scenario, the little girl is not in isolation. If Richard mutilates her, guards or caretakers will come in, see her bleeding on the floor, and then Richard will probably be tortured or executed, and they sure as hell won't spare his girlfriend.
Ok, lets play it your way. If Richard gets executed, at that point I can fairly say thats what he wants so Darken Rahl doesn't get knowledge of the book of counted shadows. How can I be sure. Because unlike your perfect knowlege, when Richard was brought before Darken Rahl he dared Rahl to cut open his guts (because Rahl's magic could read the future from gut entrails or some shit) in the hope that he denies Darken Rahl his knowledge. So that would be a plus, and it ends his torture. Only later when he figures out how to defeat Rahl then I could say he probably wants to live.
Funny you should mention it won't spare his girlfried. Actually it did help. The sequence of event goes like this.
Queen Mileena gets angry and wants to kill Richard. But since Darken Rahl wants Richard (for his secret knowlege), Denna his torturer is obligated to protect him. She kills the Queen. So not only did this not make things worse for Kahlan (since she now only has to deal Darken Rahl's goons), it actually had the potential to make things better for her country since Darken Rahl would be defeated shortly (well if viceroy ruled in Violet's name). The new viceroy could very well revert to their old non
communist socialist policy, which if you recalled, the Queen's policy required those farmers who work to supply food to those who couldn't be bothered to work. Hence if getting rid of this strawman system will actually benefit that country. So yes, in universe maiming the bitch actually turned out to have added benefits, despite the "oh won't this just make things worse for Kahlan" whining from you.
So even without perfect knowledge it turned out to be much better than you postulate. Even with your stooooopid what if scenarios, you still fucking lose. Man you can't catch a break.
Now I have done you the courtesy of addressing your bullshit scenario, why will you not do the same, especially when you yourself stated the ethical dilemna I use, and I merely asked you to justify it.
lets repeat just for you
Since you played the 24 card, lets use that as an example. From your own words, if maiming someone is the ONLY WAY (yes thats it CAPITALS just how you like it) to stop a bomb going off, and since this is 24 lets assume a competent bomber and the bomb will kill, say 100 people. Why is it not ok under your ethnics system as stated by yourself. Under my system is ok if its the ONLY WAY because the net positive gain to society outweighs the negative. 100 people alive vs one terrorist dead who will most likely cause more harm. Both under a Utilitarianism and rights base ethics system that would be justified. The former because of greater utility from 100 lives saved vs one maimed and the latter because you rights go only as far as not to compromise someone else's, ergo the bomber did not have a right to set off the bomb.
So why is such a case not ethically justifiable under your ethic system? Do you even have an ethics system, aside from Goodkind SUXS.
In the actual situation, there is no connection between mutilating the girl and survival and escape.
Actually as I shown before and after not only did it lead to escape, it also prevents the bitch from causing more harm (until she recovers, which takes about several books later), a point you continually ignore.
You ignore this because you have some compulsion to defend this scene and insist that it's not terribly written.
Aside from the moral angle you haven't... ah fuck it. I am wasting my time talking using detailed explanations for a dipshit who won't address the point. So lets make this short and sweet. That is an appeal to motive fallacy. You lose.
But this moves into my next point.
Richard does escape via this. Through a contrived response that has no logical connection to what he did. This scene is contrived solely so that Goodkind can have his hero kick a girl in the face and it be the correct action,- and he fails at even that. This is a useful definition of terrible writing- advancing the plot through a nonsensical turn of events, using said nonsensical turn of events to include pointless scenes for unknown reasons, failing at having any of it make sense, and unintentionally causing the reader to lose sympathy for his protagonist. This is excellent proof that Goodkind is as terrible a writer as he is an excuse for a human being- he can't even contrive a scenario or force a moral dilemma right!
Don't look at me, you are the one who insisted on playing this "what if" game and now you are whining because you lose in it. Fucking sore loser.
Even in-universe, it's mommy that makes the decisions, not the Princess.
Because children have absolutely no influence on their parents.
Mutilating her will not get you out of the chains in a logical scenario, nor would it even if you made her the Queen.
I am going hazard a guess it stop her from torturing you which she was doing just a few moments before.
I trust you can figure out why torturing someone for less hours of the day = better than more hours. And if they did kill Richard, remember he wanted to die to prevent Rahl getting his knowledge on the book of counted shadows. So you lose either way.
In the second scenario it might save your girlfriend, but probably not.
Except in the story, it did improve things. But you tried playing the "what if" game and it doesn't turn out the way you think "it should", you then whine.
At best it might just mean that they kill her and you. Well done, you've successfully demonstrated that contrived moral scenarios bear little resemblance to the main thing!
The contrived moral scenario I challenged you to was stated by yourself you DISHONEST FUCKWIT. Did you not say it was wrong to maim someone even if ITS THE ONLY WAY to stop the bomb, JACK BAEUR. I challenged you to justify your own moral dilemna. What cheek you fucking tosser.
You also falsely implied that this was a cognitive decision of Richard's.
Aside from stop her torturing me again, and stop her harming Kahlan, I figured that is all the cognitive decision in it for Richard. I just analysed the rest of it.
It was not, which disqualifies it from a heroic action regardless,
Wow. We have gone from Goodkind's writing sucks because his hero does an immoral action, the writing is bad because the hero doesn't actually think about all he does.
and, as we have seen, it would not have helped Richard in a scenario that was not poorly contrived by Goodkind or yourself.
Ah, so we get to the crux of the matter. Your bitching about someone defending themselves and loved ones aside, the other reason you hate the scenarios is because its contrived. Ok presumably you mean by contrived that its so unlikely that an identical or similar situation cannot occur, rather than created artificially which all fiction is.
So once again if I can find a real life example where a kid tortures and adult and adult manages to make his situation better is killing (worse than maiming) the kid, will you acknowledge that the situation is not contrived. Yes or no, and if no, why not? But I bet you will refuse to acknowledge this point as well.
So it is not moral either, and frankly quite dumb, though perhaps understandable. A better writer might have made something of it, but on the other had, better writers would probably not touch such an obviously contrived situation with a ten-foot pole.
So when I test your ethical framework with scenarios (which you yourself created) you refuse to participate in favour of just stating its not moral.
AMT wrote:Ummm... not to get into the middle of this, but Richard doesn't actually get an erection when kicking her.
The "Thing rising up within him" discussed in the book is his magic, drawn upon by his emotion and building said emotion, allowing him to kick her in the face.
Note I am not jumping onto either side of this debate, but just wanted to point out that calling Goodkind a pedophile because of this is well... stupid. Is it badly written and could be taken that way? Yes. Has it been taken that way? Yes. Was it meant to be taken that way? Not from the writers intent, since we never see such lustful ambitions regarding this character and children ever again in any way shape or form.
If thats the case, it might be why I don't remember Richard being a paedophile.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
I liked that bit. I don't think that he should have bothered becoming a master swordsman- if someone stoped him from using magic, they would just put an arrow through his head. Still, it makes sense as something he'd do- at the least it could be because he enjoys it.
