The Moraility of Ender

[haas mark]

And preserving one's own race does not automatically justify or require genocide. Depriving the enemy of the means to make war is a viable strategy. Stopping Nazi Germany certainly did not require us to exterminate the entire German populace down to the last child and dog.

But neither did Germany attempt to fight to the last man. The Buggers killed every last one of those that they caught. As far as we knew it was a war with no quarter what so ever and fought it accordingly.

Funny, the same argument was applied in the war with Japan. We didn't try justifying genocide as an acceptable response there either.

The plain facts of the matter were that the Buggers could not hit Earth in one blow. They could not hit us with everything they had and they couldn't hit us immediately. A STL attack force will be decades in crossing interstellar space, which gives all the advantages to the defenders, not the attack force. Just on those terms alone, the "us or them" argument to try to justify genocide goes out the window.

Japan did NOT kill every person they caught. I have familial evidence of that. And althought the Buggers could not hit the Earth in one blow, they could have killed Earth in one wave. And for the last time, could you at least use the proper term, XENOCIDE, WITH AN X. Genocide is killing of a race,xenocide of a species. We are dealine with species, here, not races. Adn call it semantics all you want, this is a humble request.

[Patrick Degan]

[quote="Verilon"]It's not crap, because I say so.

Sadly, that is not an argument.

[haas mark]

I've seen the novel's POV —which is why I attack it. Sorry if this doesn't suit you.

This doesn't suit me. You know why? I ask you to see it rom my POV, and you ask me what it is. When given the answer, you continue to ignore it, thusly leading me to believe that you can't, or won't. My POV is not the book's POV, so attack my POV, not the book's. The book isn't going to defend itself.

Your POV, as I see it, is that the book's thesis is justifiable. It is you who placed yourself in the position of defending it.

As an aside, it's rather amusing to see you arguing that the book isn't going to defend itself. Books are often judged upon their own merits, or lack thereof. One interpretation of that last sentence is that the book can't stand on its own merits.

In other words, you will twist my statements any which way you please, to fit them to your cause? SOunds like you arte the one thaty cant stand on an arguement. I bet you only owon that last debate because the other person couldn't stand to argue you any longer.

Moreover, can you back up that it is trash, that it is tripe, that it is crap? It's not crap, because I say so.

Let's see: justifies genocide, laden with implausibilities and plot-holes which destroys the whole logic of the novel. Points which are going to get repeated airing for as long as this thread spins out and as long as you care to provide the platform for me to launch my attacks from.

Attacks, my ass! They have been the same "points" for the last three and a half pages!!!

[haas mark]

It's not crap, because I say so.

Sadly, that is not an argument.

Well,t hen stop using it yourself.

[Stormbringer]

Justify the advocacy of genocide, even in a fictional context, in forty words or less, please.

Us or them. If it comes down to it, I'd pick the human race every time

Relativity takes the entire "us or them" equation completely out of the picture. The Buggers had nothing with which to hit Earth immediately, and any Bugger attack force would be trapped by relativity into a technological state decades behind the world its invasion force is targeting —particularly a race which ludicrously lacks both radar and radio communication (one of the many idiotic implausibilities of the novel).

It was us or them. They were, as far as anyone knew, going to destroy us. And they were more advanced when they first attacked, we barely beat them back. As far as we knew they'd come back and finish us off.

Well, that's certainly avoiding the issue of relativity or military R&D which would be advancing on the target world while the attack force would be frozen at the level of technology at which it was in when it left the homeworld. Or the many possible defences which Earth could have deployed, such as seeding the spaces at the Trojan points around Earth with mines or thousands of Little Doctor devices. The first attack was a surprise. Earth would have been prepared for a second attack. [/quote]

True but as Bean said, we'd have a very hard time bringing them to battle before they hit Earth. There's a huge volume of space around Earth and we'd need gargantuan fleet sizes to cover every last approach. And the father out you want to intercept them the more forces you need to cover a given volume. An offensive operation is the most viable and reasonable strategy.

And if they were advanced enought to kill Earth then it would be a moot point whether it was the same level as on their homeworld. The Buggers were nearly tough enough to take us out the first time and they could have been adavanced enough to do the job when they returned.

So what if their tech was lower than their homeworld, it was comperable to ours. If they could win (which would mean we would die) then they were a threat.

Their tech would be 75 years behind ours when their second attack force came. Their first attack was devestating only because it was unexpected the first time.

It was but we might not have been able to repel another it if they sent sufficient numbers or determination. The tech difference was important but not enought to give us an easy victory. Remember, Rackham won only because he killed the queen in charge (in effect dumb luck). We barely survived and we might not have the next time for all they knew.

And preserving one's own race does not automatically justify or require genocide. Depriving the enemy of the means to make war is a viable strategy. Stopping Nazi Germany certainly did not require us to exterminate the entire German populace down to the last child and dog.

But neither did Germany attempt to fight to the last man. The Buggers killed every last one of those that they caught. As far as we knew it was a war with no quarter what so ever and fought it accordingly.

Funny, the same argument was applied in the war with Japan. We didn't try justifying genocide as an acceptable response there either.

The plain facts of the matter were that the Buggers could not hit Earth in one blow. They could not hit us with everything they had and they couldn't hit us immediately. A STL attack force will be decades in crossing interstellar space, which gives all the advantages to the defenders, not the attack force. Just on those terms alone, the "us or them" argument to try to justify genocide goes out the window.

If they truly fought to the last man and would have kept hitting us if we didn't wipe them out then it would have. Japan wasn't truly prepared to die to the last man so it's a false analogy. The Buggers were prepared to do just that as far as we knew. They had already demonstrated their no quarter policy.

No, the advantages favor the attacker. A semi-fixed defense will never have advantages against a manuvering opponent. They could bring more numbers, choose when and where to attack. The Buggers held the advantage.

[haas mark]

No, the advantages favor the attacker. A semi-fixed defense will never have advantages against a manuvering opponent. They could bring more numbers, choose when and where to attack. The Buggers held the advantage.

The only point he could make here is that they brought nearly all of their forces with them. The ONLY point.

[Patrick Degan]

You avoided the argument entirely. I don’t think the Buggers moral system is negligible. It has a lot to do with it. I could very easily argue that Card's moral are way off-key by this. Can't you?

Ah. We can exterminate a whole race because they're Very Very Very Bad People/Creatures/Whatevers. Funny, in the Old Testament, that's the very same argument God gives to Joshua to go forth and annihilate the Caananites down to the last child and ox.

Well, that's certainly avoiding the issue of relativity or military R&D which would be advancing on the target world while the attack force would be frozen at the level of technology at which it was in when it left the homeworld. Or the many possible defences which Earth could have deployed, such as seeding the spaces at the Trojan points around Earth with mines or thousands of Little Doctor devices. The first attack was a surprise. Earth would have been prepared for a second attack.

It isn't avoiding it at all...besides, YOU are AGAIN avoiding the argument, as you have done for the last FOUR PAGES. In the second wave, there was no time, and that means lack of preparation. THere was precious INSTANTS where, if Ender screwed up, the entire human race would be wiped out (Xenocide...not Genocide,. Xenocide).

I see, the Buggers had FTL when it was convenient for them on their first invasion but not for the second? Elsewise, why was Mazar Rackham constantly going on about the 75 years to doomsday countdown if we didn't stop them? Seventy Five years. You're telling me that Earth military R&D would have completely frozen? Humanity would have given up and abandoned themselves to fate? Unless genocide was the answer?

Their tech would be 75 years behind ours when their second attack force came. Their first attack was devestating only because it was unexpected the first time.

Can you prove that? Their technology was far more advanced than the humans'. They could have wiped out the humans, if the Little Doctor (of which there was ONE) was not employed. Chew on that.

Um, you DO understand what time dilation is, don't you? You do understand that this is an unavoidable condition of slower-than-light travel between the stars, don't you? Just how could a fleet of ships without labs or production facilities of their own advance the technology of their battleforce along the way?

And why couldn't Earth have built thousands of Little Doctor devices to deploy within the solar system in multilayered defence? Again, are you suggesting that Earth R&D would simply cease for seven and a half decades?

[haas mark]

You avoided the argument entirely. I don’t think the Buggers moral system is negligible. It has a lot to do with it. I could very easily argue that Card's moral are way off-key by this. Can't you?

Ah. We can exterminate a whole race because they're Very Very Very Bad People/Creatures/Whatevers. Funny, in the Old Testament, that's the very same argument God gives to Joshua to go forth and annihilate the Caananites down to the last child and ox.

Why do you get off on this so friggin much? Is this how you see me?

Well, that's certainly avoiding the issue of relativity or military R&D which would be advancing on the target world while the attack force would be frozen at the level of technology at which it was in when it left the homeworld. Or the many possible defences which Earth could have deployed, such as seeding the spaces at the Trojan points around Earth with mines or thousands of Little Doctor devices. The first attack was a surprise. Earth would have been prepared for a second attack.

It isn't avoiding it at all...besides, YOU are AGAIN avoiding the argument, as you have done for the last FOUR PAGES. In the second wave, there was no time, and that means lack of preparation. THere was precious INSTANTS where, if Ender screwed up, the entire human race would be wiped out (Xenocide...not Genocide,. Xenocide).

I see, the Buggers had FTL when it was convenient for them on their first invasion but not for the second? Elsewise, why was Mazar Rackham constantly going on about the 75 years to doomsday countdown if we didn't stop them? Seventy Five years. You're telling me that Earth military R&D would have completely frozen? Humanity would have given up and abandoned themselves to fate? Unless genocide was the answer?

I never said the froze, they just had very little time (figuratively) to gain THAT much technology.

Their tech would be 75 years behind ours when their second attack force came. Their first attack was devestating only because it was unexpected the first time.

Can you prove that? Their technology was far more advanced than the humans'. They could have wiped out the humans, if the Little Doctor (of which there was ONE) was not employed. Chew on that.

Um, you DO understand what time dilation is, don't you? You do understand that this is an unavoidable condition of slower-than-light travel between the stars, don't you? Just how could a fleet of ships without labs or production facilities of their own advance the technology of their battleforce along the way?[/quote]

Blah. Blah. Blah. It was never said that they didn't have labs, and they had the FIRST 75 years to improve upon.

And why couldn't Earth have built thousands of Little Doctor devices to deploy within the solar system in multilayered defence? Again, are you suggesting that Earth R&D would simply cease for seven and a half decades?

Becuase it said secifically that they had ONE and that it was not even more than a prototype, IIRC!

[Mr Bean]

As requested Topic Split

[haas mark]

As requested Topic Split

Thank you.

[haas mark]

Well, that's certainly avoiding the issue of relativity or military R&D which would be advancing on the target world while the attack force would be frozen at the level of technology at which it was in when it left the homeworld. Or the many possible defences which Earth could have deployed, such as seeding the spaces at the Trojan points around Earth with mines or thousands of Little Doctor devices. The first attack was a surprise. Earth would have been prepared for a second attack.

True but as Bean said, we'd have a very hard time bringing them to battle before they hit Earth. There's a huge volume of space around Earth and we'd need gargantuan fleet sizes to cover every last approach. And the father out you want to intercept them the more forces you need to cover a given volume. An offensive operation is the most viable and reasonable strategy.

Yet more proof that Card didn't know shit. Yes there's a huge volume of space around Earth. But the approaches are finite and the space closer in toward Earth is defensible through sheer volume of firepower. And a large body of ships would certainly provide plenty of observable targets.

As for offensive operations being the more viable strategy, the same relativity-based factors which disadvantage a Bugger invasion fleet works the opposite way against an Earth fleet. Indeed, relativity should have resulted in the Buggers being faced by a fleet decades more primitive than the force they initially sent out decades before that.

And if they were advanced enought to kill Earth then it would be a moot point whether it was the same level as on their homeworld. The Buggers were nearly tough enough to take us out the first time and they could have been adavanced enough to do the job when they returned.

But they weren't, so this "what if" argument is moot.

Their tech would be 75 years behind ours when their second attack force came. Their first attack was devestating only because it was unexpected the first time.

It was but we might not have been able to repel another it if they sent sufficient numbers or determination. The tech difference was important but not enought to give us an easy victory. Remember, Rackham won only because he killed the queen in charge (in effect dumb luck). We barely survived and we might not have the next time for all they knew.

The point is that they didn't have the capability to bring enough force to hit us with a killing blow the first time, and without radio, the Buggers had no means to communicate with the homeworld as to the success of their strike. I will say this again: the initial Bugger strike was so devestating because Earth had not been expecting it. Earth would have been prepared for a second invasion attempt: unless you're actually going to buy Card's (via Rackham's) bullshit argument that they would have been helpless unless they go ahead and commit genocide in an all-out offensive (which should itself have been impossible given the relativity trap working against an Earth fleet).

The plain facts of the matter were that the Buggers could not hit Earth in one blow. They could not hit us with everything they had and they couldn't hit us immediately. A STL attack force will be decades in crossing interstellar space, which gives all the advantages to the defenders, not the attack force. Just on those terms alone, the "us or them" argument to try to justify genocide goes out the window.

If they truly fought to the last man and would have kept hitting us if we didn't wipe them out then it would have. Japan wasn't truly prepared to die to the last man so it's a false analogy.

The propaganda of the time said otherwise. Or do you actually believe any government tells its people the whole truth in a war?

The Buggers were prepared to do just that as far as we knew. They had already demonstrated their no quarter policy.

All that said was that their military forces had to be destroyed utterly. Just like we had to annihilate whole Japanese regiments on the islands —who also fought "no quarter".

No, the advantages favor the attacker. A semi-fixed defense will never have advantages against a manuvering opponent. They could bring more numbers, choose when and where to attack. The Buggers held the advantage.

Sorry, but land warfare analogies do not apply to space warfare —particularly in a slower-than-light paradigm. Unless their entire race was migrating across space, the Buggers by definition could not bring their entire force to bear against Earth. It would take decades for their invasion force to make the journey. Independently targetable missiles by the thousands or even millions would be able to track each incoming target and we'd certainly know which approach they'd be taking into our star system, thanks to that wonderful invention known as the telescope. Finally, the Bugger invasion fleet would be frozen, technology-wise, at the level at which they left their homeworld, while Earth's technology would be advancing (that is, in any realistic paradigm). Advantage for the defence. A massive advantage.

You still argue like a fundie. And Stormy's out of this. He's grown tired of your mini-Dorkstar debate ont he same points, as have I. So you are older than I , and know a helluva a lot more, and so although I do not concede, I do not wish to debate further. I see many of your points made againsty mine, and very good ones, at that. Maybe if I see one or two pointas after this, I will continue, but more than likel;y not. I grow weary of your long-winded replies that contain literallyu the same thing over and over, as well as your inherent ability to ignore half my posts. So, I bid thee well, and twas a good debate, but, for now, I am done.

[Patrick Degan]

You still argue like a fundie.

Employing logic, reasoning, pointing out fundamental flaws in the defence... Nope, that's arguing like a debator. Denying inconvenient facts and arguments unfavourable to one's cherished position —it is you who is playing the fundie here, Verilon.

And Stormy's out of this. He's grown tired of your mini-Dorkstar debate ont the same points, as have I.

Pot calling the kettle black. Sounds more like the two of you are trying to find an easy out of a fight you didn't expect to find yourselves in the thick of.

So you are older than I , and know a helluva a lot more, and so although I do not concede, I do not wish to debate further. I see many of your points made against mine, and very good ones, at that. Maybe if I see one or two points after this, I will continue, but more than likely not. I grow weary of your long-winded replies that contain literally the same thing over and over, as well as your inherent ability to ignore half my posts. So, I bid thee well, and twas a good debate, but, for now, I am done.

Ignoring your points? How? Refusing to agree that genocide can be justified? Refusing to agree that Orson Scott Card is the Great Writer who can Do No Wrong? If a debate is to proceed, I must take a contrary position.

You "grow weary of my long-winded replies"? Too bad. I'm supposed to argue my position on terminology and formatting conveinent to your attention span? Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.

At one point, you accused me of contradicting my own line of reasoning. When challenged to provide evidence to back the charge, you said "do the work yourself, you lazy SOB". I did —and demonstrated that you had no shred of evidence to back your assertion. Then you tried changing the terms of the challenge issued to "prove" that I'd done what I had manifestly not done. That is a dishonest debating tactic and unworthy of you.

You claimed that I wasn't seeing your point of view. I outlined just how I disagreed with that POV, and evidently it upsets you that I refuse to bow down and acknowledge the alledged greatness of what on balance is a piss-poor novel with a morally questionable assertion at its core. I saw the POV of the novel when I read it, and I was attacking it. That unfortunately is what "debate" entails.

Now Stormbringer wants to withdraw from the field as well, because I refuse to concede his arguments which go as far as the novel did in ignoring realistic, practical, plausible considerations of warfare, relativity mechanics, technological R&D, and all on top of the moral issue he prefers to cast in the same idiotically simplistic terms as Card? Obviously, he didn't expect the sort of fight he was letting himself in for. Hint for the future, boys: never fuck with the eagles unless you know how to fly.

"Mini-Dorkstar style", eh? I don't know whether to find that insulting or laughable. My points were clear and didn't depend upon parsing sentence fragments, or circular logic, as supports. If points are going to be attacked, they must be defended, and reasons must be provided to justify those positions.

Boys, the plain fact is that you didn't anticipate walking into the rotating knives and you got cut. Badly. I'm sorry if feelings got hurt in the process. It's your choice to continue or withdraw, but I will defend my position with full rigor. The only terms I ever fight any debate I'm determined to fight all the way.

[haas mark]

Before I actually read the end statement., I would like to point out one last thing: It is xenocide. Not genocide. Learn the difference, learn it well. Xenocide is the destruction of a species (such as the buggers). Genocide is destruction of a race/religious group/political group (ie Jews, in the WWII example).

That is all. It has continually annoyed me that you refuse to use the proper term, and that is one thing I asked: for you to use the proper term.

[haas mark]

Also, you outlined how you disagred with my point of view., That is not the same as seeing it from my point of view.

[Patrick Degan]

Also, you outlined how you disagred with my point of view., That is not the same as seeing it from my point of view.

The only way to do that is to essentially concede and agree with your view of the novel. That's not going to happen. Deal with it.

And as far as your insistence on using the term xenocide, that's your privilege. I'm using the term that describes the uncomfortable fact of what the novel proposes to justify. If that makes you uncomfortable, too bad.

[FBHthelizardmage]

IRRC the buggers had FTL telepathy

they were certainly able to learn from the attacks on each of there world in turn. and comuicate this to the next world.

[Ryoga]

Verilon, I have to ask an honest question:

Why do you feel the urge to open your mouth on this board, when you have no intention of defending your ideas, and will act indignant if anyone calls you on it? It's remarkably similar to the creationist habit of "intellectual masturbation", where they feel they have every right to express their stupidity...but woe be to anyone who responds!

To keep to the topic, though, I'll ask a question that Degan posed, and you ignored:

Do you feel genocide is acceptable? Under what circumstances?

And please, no more of this "Don't criticize me!" bullshit. Either put up or shut up.

[haas mark]

Verilon, I have to ask an honest question:

Why do you feel the urge to open your mouth on this board, when you have no intention of defending your ideas, and will act indignant if anyone calls you on it? It's remarkably similar to the creationist habit of "intellectual masturbation", where they feel they have every right to express their stupidity...but woe be to anyone who responds!

To keep to the topic, though, I'll ask a question that Degan posed, and you ignored:

Do you feel genocide is acceptable? Under what circumstances?

And please, no more of this "Don't criticize me!" bullshit. Either put up or shut up.

Jeez, I go away for an hour and automatically I've ignored him...

No, I don't think that xenocide (nor genocide, for that matter) is justifiable in any real life situation. I do think, however, that in fiction, that because anything is possible, everything will happen. My point is this: Fiction is fiction, and RL is RL. We leave it at that, right? No, we have to argue that my moral judgement holds true for both fiction and Real Life, which it does not.

And Degan: the books propose to justify xenocide, not genocide, so eat that. That would be why the third book is entitled Xenocide. And I never asked you to conced to my side of the argument, I only asked you if you can possibly see where I am coming form, try to step into my shoes, try to have my moral judgement, albeit it is sscary for you, it is possible. I have seen your point of view, that the novel is bullshit. But I do also ask two more thigs of you:

1st) We argue one point at a time. As I'm sure you have seen, it is quite difficult for me to argue multiple points at the same time.

2nd) How can you justify that it is crap (your opinion) when he has both a Nebula Award AND a Hugo Award nomination? IMO, that makes it at least a somewhat decent book. But if that isn't good enough for you, I don't know what is. And you laughed at the thought that it was a good book "because I said so." You asked me what I was doing by that. I responded (maybe you missed it) with the fact that you are doing it as well, but saying that it is tripe because you say so. Also, you refused to acknowledge (or maybe, again, you missed it) that when you asked Stormbringer to justify gen/xenocide morally in 40 words or less, I asked you to judge it immoral.

And nowhere (I think) have I asked anyone not to criticize me.

[Ryoga]

Jeez, I go away for an hour and automatically I've ignored him...

No, I'm thinking that because the question was posed on page 2 of this thread, and you've continued the discussion for at least 5 more pages, you've had more than enough time to answer the question. Your failure to do so means you either: A) can't answer the question, B) feel it's not important, or C) don't want to undermine your position. But that's really neither here nor there.

No, I don't think that xenocide (nor genocide, for that matter) is justifiable in any real life situation. I do think, however, that in fiction, that because anything is possible, everything will happen. My point is this: Fiction is fiction, and RL is RL. We leave it at that, right? No, we have to argue that my moral judgement holds true for both fiction and Real Life, which it does not.

So, you would posit that what's moral in RL and what's moral in fiction are entirely different? What the fuck have you been smoking? If a fictional character kills people for no apparent reason, or steals someone's life savings, or lies to his own mother, or does anything of that sort, then the readers/viewers/whatever will view that character as an immoral person. Are you suggesting that fictional characters can't be judged on the morality of their actions?

I'll allow Degan to stand up for himself in his own way, but I also feel that something else should be pointed out:

And nowhere (I think) have I asked anyone not to criticize me.

Is that so? Are you denying that in the "BWAHAHA! Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Go To Heaven!" thread you said this:

I just happen to find it unacceptable..and will always. Just leave me and my opinions alone!!!

And then continued to insist that your views were inviolate, when people continued to attempt discussion?

And what about this very thread, when you bust out doozies like:

It's not crap, because I say so.

or

You still argue like a fundie. And Stormy's out of this. He's grown tired of your mini-Dorkstar debate ont he same points, as have I. So you are older than I , and know a helluva a lot more, and so although I do not concede, I do not wish to debate further. I see many of your points made againsty mine, and very good ones, at that. Maybe if I see one or two pointas after this, I will continue, but more than likel;y not. I grow weary of your long-winded replies that contain literallyu the same thing over and over, as well as your inherent ability to ignore half my posts. So, I bid thee well, and twas a good debate, but, for now, I am done.

So, to sum up:

[/quote]

[haas mark]

Jeez, I go away for an hour and automatically I've ignored him...

No, I'm thinking that because the question was posed on page 2 of this thread, and you've continued the discussion for at least 5 more pages, you've had more than enough time to answer the question. Your failure to do so means you either: A) can't answer the question, B) feel it's not important, or C) don't want to undermine your position. But that's really neither here nor there.

So? I might have forgotten about it. Did you ever htink about that? Apparently not.

No, I don't think that xenocide (nor genocide, for that matter) is justifiable in any real life situation. I do think, however, that in fiction, that because anything is possible, everything will happen. My point is this: Fiction is fiction, and RL is RL. We leave it at that, right? No, we have to argue that my moral judgement holds true for both fiction and Real Life, which it does not.

So, you would posit that what's moral in RL and what's moral in fiction are entirely different? What the fuck have you been smoking? If a fictional character kills people for no apparent reason, or steals someone's life savings, or lies to his own mother, or does anything of that sort, then the readers/viewers/whatever will view that character as an immoral person. Are you suggesting that fictional characters can't be judged on the morality of their actions?

Morals are different in fiction. Nothing is real in fiction. Are you trying ot say that fiction is somehow going to have a true impact on someone's life? And no, I am not saying that the morality can't be questioned, just that iot is pointless to do so.

I'll allow Degan to stand up for himself in his own way, but I also feel that something else should be pointed out:

And nowhere (I think) have I asked anyone not to criticize me.

Is that so? Are you denying that in the "BWAHAHA! Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Go To Heaven!" thread you said this:

I just happen to find it unacceptable..and will always. Just leave me and my opinions alone!!!

That was in THAT thread, not this one. That's what I meant...I didn't think I had posted any of that in this thread. So I was accidentally a bit vague. SUE ME!

And then continued to insist that your views were inviolate, when people continued to attempt discussion?

And what about this very thread, when you bust out doozies like:

It's not crap, because I say so.

What, where he uses the same tactic against me?

or

You still argue like a fundie. And Stormy's out of this. He's grown tired of your mini-Dorkstar debate ont he same points, as have I. So you are older than I , and know a helluva a lot more, and so although I do not concede, I do not wish to debate further. I see many of your points made againsty mine, and very good ones, at that. Maybe if I see one or two pointas after this, I will continue, but more than likel;y not. I grow weary of your long-winded replies that contain literallyu the same thing over and over, as well as your inherent ability to ignore half my posts. So, I bid thee well, and twas a good debate, but, for now, I am done.

Sop I can't hand over a debate formally? Okay, let's continue...one...point...at a time.

So, to sum up:

[/quote]

Not yet, I havent.

[HemlockGrey]

Yes, veri, I think he has.

[Patrick Degan]

And Degan: the books propose to justify xenocide, not genocide, so eat that.

I hate to tell you this, but these semantical distinctions you insist upon making are solely for the purpose of ducking the issue at hand; to put up this facade that we can seperate moral dilemmas proposed in fiction from moral dilemmas extant in the real world. You said:

I don't think that xenocide (nor genocide, for that matter) is justifiable in any real life situation. I do think, however, that in fiction, that because anything is possible, everything will happen. My point is this: Fiction is fiction, and RL is RL. We leave it at that, right? No, we have to argue that my moral judgement holds true for both fiction and Real Life, which it does not.

The problem is that when you can make one exception to the proposition that the annihilation of an entire people/race/species is unacceptable, morally and ethically, simply because a piece of fiction invites us to do so, it becomes just a tiny bit easier to excuse or turn a blind eye to genocidal atrocities in the real world, even if you now insist that it is not possible, out of sheer intellectual laziness. In the years immediately following the Second World War, anybody who would have publicly proposed the idea of defensive genocide, even by the most subtle formulation, would have been adjuged a lunatic or a moral imbecile and his credibility destroyed on the spot. I've run into too many people who can now loan credence to such an abominable proposition and this in the last ten years. Most of them, I have found, have zero idea what they're talking about and even less idea of the implications of what they are attempting to justify.

I only asked you if you can possibly see where I am coming form, try to step into my shoes, try to have my moral judgement, albeit it is scary for you, it is possible.

What point of view is there that justifies genocide?

How can you justify that (the novel) is crap (your opinion) when he has both a Nebula Award AND a Hugo Award nomination? IMO, that makes it at least a somewhat decent book.

Appeal to Authority fallacy. I can tell you right now that mere trophies don't impress me. Particularly from an awards process which is about as political as any awards process. Orson Scott Card's trophies have nothing to do with any debate regarding the merits, or lack thereof, of the novel and its ideas.

[Enlightenment]

In the years immediately following the Second World War, anybody who would have publicly proposed the idea of defensive genocide, even by the most subtle formulation, would have been adjuged a lunatic or a moral imbecile and his credibility destroyed on the spot.

The validity of that statement rather depends on if the 1950s count as 'immediately following' WWII and if nuclear strikes conducted against population centers can be regarded as acts of genocide.

Orson Scott Card's trophies have nothing to do with any debate regarding the merits, or lack thereof, of the novel and its ideas.

You appear rather quick to dissmiss Ender's Game as a work promoting or excusing genocide, and, for that matter, to suggest that Card holds similar views. This is rather akin to suggesting that The Handmaid's Tale is a work promoting Christian fundamentism or that 1984 is a work promoting Palladium/ubiquitous law enforcement. It is not necessary to point out the errors in such interpretations.

[haas mark]

And Degan: the books propose to justify xenocide, not genocide, so eat that.

I hate to tell you this, but these semantical distinctions you insist upon making are solely for the purpose of ducking the issue at hand; to put up this facade that we can seperate moral dilemmas proposed in fiction from moral dilemmas extant in the real world. You said:

I don't think that xenocide (nor genocide, for that matter) is justifiable in any real life situation. I do think, however, that in fiction, that because anything is possible, everything will happen. My point is this: Fiction is fiction, and RL is RL. We leave it at that, right? No, we have to argue that my moral judgement holds true for both fiction and Real Life, which it does not.

The problem is that when you can make one exception to the proposition that the annihilation of an entire people/race/species is unacceptable, morally and ethically, simply because a piece of fiction invites us to do so, it becomes just a tiny bit easier to excuse or turn a blind eye to genocidal atrocities in the real world, even if you now insist that it is not possible, out of sheer intellectual laziness.

When did I ever say that I would turn away from real life genocide. ANd my "semantics," as you put them are not semantics. There is a key difference in the meanings of the words. What race are we talking about in these books? We are speaking in terms of species.

In the years immediately following the Second World War, anybody who would have publicly proposed the idea of defensive genocide, even by the most subtle formulation, would have been adjuged a lunatic or a moral imbecile and his credibility destroyed on the spot. I've run into too many people who can now loan credence to such an abominable proposition and this in the last ten years. Most of them, I have found, have zero idea what they're talking about and even less idea of the implications of what they are attempting to justify.

We're not here to debate WWII. Point dropped.

I only asked you if you can possibly see where I am coming form, try to step into my shoes, try to have my moral judgement, albeit it is scary for you, it is possible.

What point of view is there that justifies genocide?

Apparently, mine.

How can you justify that (the novel) is crap (your opinion) when he has both a Nebula Award AND a Hugo Award nomination? IMO, that makes it at least a somewhat decent book.

Appeal to Authority fallacy. I can tell you right now that mere trophies don't impress me. Particularly from an awards process which is about as political as any awards process. Orson Scott Card's trophies have nothing to do with any debate regarding the merits, or lack thereof, of the novel and its ideas.

So trophies don't impress you. They don't impress me. I thhink that the sheer style of the book was enough toi convince me (as a reader) to continue reading the books. And trophies do have plenty to do with merit: they are a sign of merit. Please tell me one book you liked, and I may judge it in the asame way, provided I had read it. Rather, a listy of books, considering I may not have read all the same.

Also: Pull out one point at a time. I am only going to debate form one stance at a time. You see already that I can't go from multiple angles at once; if this were a debate in life, we wouldn't be going off on more than one point at a time (necessarily).

Lastly: Genocide is not Xenocide, and if you refuse to make a fair claim as to why it is so impossible to use that x key instead of the g key, then, I don't see what the point of debating some of this is. No, this is not semantics, there is a valid point behind it. It is that xenocide is dealing with an entire species (as in Ender's game), where genocide is dealing with a group of that species (as in WWII). Collectively, we can call the entire species a "group" of the species, but in the end, it is still xenocide.

mew.

Yes, I am evil.

[Patrick Degan]

When did I ever say that I would turn away from real life genocide. ANd my "semantics," as you put them are not semantics. There is a key difference in the meanings of the words. What race are we talking about in these books? We are speaking in terms of species.

You keep pretending that there is a meaningful difference between "genocide" and "xenocide"; simply because we're talking about an "alien" race. Nevermind that all any SF alien amounts to is a metaphorical symbol. We're still talking about the extermination of an entire race.

In the years immediately following the Second World War, anybody who would have publicly proposed the idea of defensive genocide, even by the most subtle formulation, would have been adjuged a lunatic or a moral imbecile and his credibility destroyed on the spot. I've run into too many people who can now loan credence to such an abominable proposition and this in the last ten years. Most of them, I have found, have zero idea what they're talking about and even less idea of the implications of what they are attempting to justify.

We're not here to debate WWII. Point dropped.

Red Herring fallacy. That was not my intention in raising that particular point. My meaning was to demonstrate growing intellectual laziness over what should be clear-cut issues.

I only asked you if you can possibly see where I am coming form, try to step into my shoes, try to have my moral judgement, albeit it is scary for you, it is possible.

What point of view is there that justifies genocide?

Apparently, mine.[/quote]

In other words, none. You can't justify a fundamental wrong.

How can you justify that (the novel) is crap (your opinion) when he has both a Nebula Award AND a Hugo Award nomination? IMO, that makes it at least a somewhat decent book.

Appeal to Authority fallacy. I can tell you right now that mere trophies don't impress me. Particularly from an awards process which is about as political as any awards process. Orson Scott Card's trophies have nothing to do with any debate regarding the merits, or lack thereof, of the novel and its ideas.

So trophies don't impress you. They don't impress me.[/quote]

Then you had no point in invoking them, other than to try an Appeal to Authority argument.

And trophies do have plenty to do with merit: they are a sign of merit.

As you wish.

Please tell me one book you liked, and I may judge it in the same way, provided I had read it. Rather, a list of books, considering I may not have read all the same.

My reading list, sir, is not material to this discussion.

Also: Pull out one point at a time. I am only going to debate from one stance at a time. You see already that I can't go from multiple angles at once; if this were a debate in life, we wouldn't be going off on more than one point at a time (necessarily).

Style over Substance fallacy.

Lastly: Genocide is not Xenocide, and if you refuse to make a fair claim as to why it is so impossible to use that x key instead of the g key, then, I don't see what the point of debating some of this is. No, this is not semantics, there is a valid point behind it. It is that xenocide is dealing with an entire species (as in Ender's game), where genocide is dealing with a group of that species (as in WWII). Collectively, we can call the entire species a "group" of the species, but in the end, it is still xenocide.

Now you're down to picking gnatshit out of pepper, Verilon. As I've said, we're still talking about justifying the annihilation of an entire people. Trying semantical trickery to avoid the implications of the point you've staked yourself out to defend avails you no quarter on this.