Bakustra wrote:snip
I will come up with a more detailed response later, although I have to say your responses have gotten a bit better. But I just want to point a few selected things out.
Bakustra wrote:
I reject your arguments about torture because they have no resemblance to reality. If you have a situation wherein you must torture somebody in order to stop a bomb from going off, then that is a situation in which torture is moral. But that scenario defines torture as necessary, and requires near-omniscience on behalf of the person making the decision. You could literally do the same for any moral dilemma- defining the traditionally wrong thing as necessary. This is only good for separating utilitarians from other ethical systems. Otherwise, it is of limited use. Your moral understanding is frankly limited if you think that this is the be-all, end-all of moral arguments.
Then the scenario is easy enough to rephrase without needing omniscience. Simply that you have exhausted all available non "wrong" options but I digress.
The argument about maiming to stop the bomb was initially postulated by you if you recall, not me, so you used an argument which has "no resemblance to reality". Is this forgetfulness the usual for you? I merely challenged you to follow through with that. In real life I wouldn't advocate torture because it doesn't work, however since you stated "it was the ONLY WAY" I did for the purpose to gauge your moral framework.
You talk about moral dilemna only good for separating utilitarians from other ethical systems, when I have earlier already stated the purpose of a moral dilemna was similar, ie to test your ethical system. Did you perhaps miss that part? So the million dollar question, what do you think I have been trying to do with the dilemna? Could it have been trying to gauge the moral framework with which you judge the situation? Nah it couldn't be.
Its laughable for you to say my understanding of it is limited, when I have used your own moral dilemna in the very way you say it should be utilised. Tell me do you suffer from the same type of learning disability Goodkind does?
As of now, anyone reading this would still be struggling to gauge the moral framework you use, its rules, premises etc. All I can think of is your gut feeling coupled with Goodkind sucks donkey balls.
There. So in this case, let us see whether the actions would logically follow that kicking the girl will bring an end to the torture, ensure freedom and life, and all that cool jazz. But first, let me say that you are lying when you say that Richard took conscious action to provoke his death.
I could have sworn I said the only conscious action he took was to try and prevent the torture and a need to protect Kahlan. I am pointing out that your statement about it making it worse, isn't necessary true because we know he wanted to die for various reasons already stated. Whether he is conscious of it when he made his decision is irrelevant to the point. I trust you can join the dots? Or maybe not. I would ask you to quote me on that, but you are just going to ignore that and repeat this claim ad nauseum again.
The passage shows that he did it as pure stimulus-response. This is not a heroic action for reasons I will get into later, but it disqualifies him as having any real motive, most importantly. This makes further discussion somewhat moot, but whatever, it's not like you won't ignore this paragraph anyhow.
Funny I don't really care whether he meets your criteria of a hero, which apparently a need to protect yourself isn't a motive. But whatever. I have already said I thought it was undesirable for his main character to be sprouting Ayn Rand crap in my opening paragraph.
However I do point out that it was silly to criticise him for defending himself which is a total separate consideration from whether he meets your definition of hero.
Now, if your goal is to seek death, then it's still a stupid action because it's unlikely to provoke a quick death, nor will it protect your girlfriend either.
Since you choose to ignore what happens (in the book) in favour of what I feel should happen I can to. I could simply say that the Queen's attention is diverted to Richard, giving Kahlan more time to head to where she was going. This is itself not an unreasonable assumption given the numerous times we hear in the media about <insert event here> will detract <insert government here> from doing <insert other task here>.
If you say its unlikely to provoke a quick death, its just reaching on your part, since some people do want to just get it over and done (executing enemies that is) and in the novel that is what Queen Mileena stated she wanted. So you are literally pulling shit up as it suits you. Funny thing is, thats the very thing you accuse Goodkind of.
While it did lead to his escape, there was no logical reason why it should have. That is what I mean by contrived- there is no path from A to B, or imprisonment to escape, that makes sense without authorial intervention. The story is not organic at this point, because the author made it make no sense. If he had restricted himself to "Richard's powers come back", then that would be one thing, but he also has to incorporate nonsensical scenes that detract from his intentions.
Now that I know what you mean, I can formulate a better response later. It only took, like what how many posts of asking?
A hero blah blah
Since I don't actually care whether he fits your definition of hero, in fact I have already said Richard as the protagonist has undesirable traits like preaching Ayn Rand crap, and since I was mainly interested in saying that its stupid to criticise Richard for defending himself and loved ones, what is the whole point of your hero rant? Except to throw in more Goodkind SUXS statements.
Secondarily, the objections to torture in real life, which you appear to be unaware of, are that it provides a mass of information which is mostly false and generally what the victim thinks the tormentors want to hear, it creates a public-relations uproar and helps ensure that the forces you are fighting will avoid being taken alive at all, and it psychologically traumatizes the people that perform it. In real life, as opposed to contrived scenarios you believe to be profound, torture is ineffective, horrific, and therefore only used by the more vile governments of the world.
If you see my post in some threads like the conservative talk show hosts water boards himself, you will know I oppose torture, having no wish to see him torture himself again just to see if he failed to hold his breath (because I was wondering why he didn't hold his breath given that he was only to be waterboard for a short time and I clearly didn't see it the first time round). So take your strawman and shove it. You were the one who used maiming was the ONLY WAY dilemna which I used purely to test your ethical framework, and I was up front about it having that purpose. I even applied my own ethical framework to the situation so you can't accuse me of not taking the challenge.
But you know what?
You are the guy who thinks a statement about the hero coming his magic = hero having an erection.
You are the guy who thinks defending yourself in self defense from an assailant = using the same force on criminals who are already locked up.
You are the guy who thinks saying its stupid to criticise Richard for defending himself = its stupid to criticise Richard for allegedly having a hard on in the presence of a child
Is it any wonder you think me using your own torture scenario as an ethical dilemna= me thinking torture works.
With this type of reading comprehension, Goodkind had no fucking chance but to be misintepreted. Its been a while since I read this book, but I don't recall ever having the impression that Richard was a paedophile.
I bet you if Goodkind was explaining quantitative easing to a bunch of kids and used the word stimulus, you would be jumping up and down and labelling him a paedophile, AM I RITE.
Thirdly, the scene is pointless because there's literally no reason to have him mutilate the kid and it harms any interpretation of him. If he were a hero, he would wait to make his escape. If he were an antihero of one stripe, he would wait to make his escape and take his violent revenge. If he were one of another, he would take the kick but it would not be a heroic action. The scene is extraneous to his reawakening of magic powers and actively harms any sort of interpretation of his character. It is pointless because it would have been better if it had never been put in.
I will touch on this later.
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.