The Moraility of Ender

[Stormbringer]

No, we were arguing the morality of Card's entire thesis. You chose to interpret this as an argument specifically resting upon the shoulders of Ender. Ender is Card's protagonist and essentially his tool in advancing an at-best questionable proposition. On those grounds is there any blurring of the lines which is unavoidable, but the specific character is not my specific focus in this aspect of the debate.

No, we moved form debating Card's morality to debating Ender's.

Oh, and just when did we do that, exactly?

When you changed the topic.

[haas mark]

No, we were arguing the morality of Card's entire thesis. You chose to interpret this as an argument specifically resting upon the shoulders of Ender. Ender is Card's protagonist and essentially his tool in advancing an at-best questionable proposition. On those grounds is there any blurring of the lines which is unavoidable, but the specific character is not my specific focus in this aspect of the debate.

No, we moved form debating Card's morality to debating Ender's.

Oh, and just when did we do that, exactly?

Why don't you read about six posts ago and find out!?

[Patrick Degan]

Degan, in what way is the morality of OSC questionable?

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

And how exactly is Ender morally at fault for what happened to the Buggers?

sigh... One more time: I said up front that Ender was a pathetic, brainwashed kid. My attack on this aspect of the debate has been on OSC's entire thesis by which he has his protagonist commit an act of genocide, then spends his succeeding books trying to have his cake ("justifiable" genocide) and eat it at the same time (the fantasy of being able to unkill a race you've just killed).

[Patrick Degan]

No, we moved form debating Card's morality to debating Ender's.

Oh, and just when did we do that, exactly?

Why don't you read about six posts ago and find out!?

Quote me.

[Stormbringer]

Degan, in what way is the morality of OSC questionable?

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

And how exactly is Ender morally at fault for what happened to the Buggers?

sigh... One more time: I said up front that Ender was a pathetic, brainwashed kid. My attack on this aspect of the debate has been on OSC's entire thesis by which he has his protagonist commit an act of genocide, then spends his succeeding books trying to have his cake ("justifiable" genocide) and eat it at the same time (the fantasy of being able to unkill a race you've just killed).

[haas mark]

Degan, in what way is the morality of OSC questionable?

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

YOu argue like a fundie. How is he supposed to do that? Argue that it is NOT justifiable in 40 words or less, please.

And how exactly is Ender morally at fault for what happened to the Buggers?

sigh... One more time: I said up front that Ender was a pathetic, brainwashed kid. My attack on this aspect of the debate has been on OSC's entire thesis by which he has his protagonist commit an act of genocide, then spends his succeeding books trying to have his cake ("justifiable" genocide) and eat it at the same time (the fantasy of being able to unkill a race you've just killed).

You have used this same argument at least six times.

[haas mark]

Oh, and just when did we do that, exactly?

Why don't you read about six posts ago and find out!?

Quote me.

I already have. Why don't you BACKTRACK a little bit you lazy ass SOB bastard. (No, I'm not attacking you, just your illogic. Have a nice day.)

[Patrick Degan]

No, we moved form debating Card's morality to debating Ender's.

Oh, and just when did we do that, exactly?

When you changed the topic.

Excuse me, but Verilon invited me "to see things" from the POV of the books. This invited the inevitable response and has spun out into this debate.

[haas mark]

Oh, and just when did we do that, exactly?

When you changed the topic.

Excuse me, but Verilon invited me "to see things" from the POV of the books. This invited the inevitable response and has spun out into this debate.

No, I asked you to see things from my POV. How you managed to misinterpret that, I don't know.

[Stormbringer]

quote="Patrick Degan"]

And how exactly is Ender morally at fault for what happened to the Buggers?

sigh... One more time: I said up front that Ender was a pathetic, brainwashed kid. My attack on this aspect of the debate has been on OSC's entire thesis by which he has his protagonist commit an act of genocide, then spends his succeeding books trying to have his cake ("justifiable" genocide) and eat it at the same time (the fantasy of being able to unkill a race you've just killed).[/quote]

So what's wrong with it? He wrote a series of books grappling with the consequences of genocide. The buggers survived because they were smart enough to make a back up plan. What's immoral about that.

And it sure looked like an attack on Ender's morality to me.

[Patrick Degan]

Why don't you read about six posts ago and find out!?

Quote me.

I already have. Why don't you BACKTRACK a little bit you lazy ass SOB bastard. (No, I'm not attacking you, just your illogic. Have a nice day.)

No, you've done no such thing. It was not on me to prove that I had done what you said. But since you left me to do your work for you, let's just go through the record, shall we?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ender Wiggin is a pathetic brainwashed kid who was essentially programmed to push the button on a genocidal device; in the context of a war between races confined to sublight drive and relativistic star travel. Grand Admiral Thrawn has a modern FTL-capable warfleet with an arsenal of superweapons and heavily armed, fast fighter craft at his command.

My initial post on the subject, as I recall. Notice that I specifically label Ender Wiggin "a pathetic brainwashed kid who was essentially programmed to push the button on a genocidal device". That alone should be sufficent for anyone with two braincells to rub together to understand the context of all subsequent arguments.

To put it bluntly, a brainwashed fourteen year old kid would be out of his depth stuck in a TIE fighter cockpit and trying to lead a fighter wing while somebody's actually trying to kill him.

Reconfirming the point about Ender being a brainwashed 14-year old.

Originally posted by verilon:
So he was programmed. He DID have a heart. You have to read the books AFTER that to see it.

And Hitler loved his dogs. Big deal. Genocide is still genocide, and the heart of the guy who pushes the button doesn't erase that.

Perhaps this is where you imagine you've got me? How easy it is to leap to conclusions when you decide to ignore overall context. Thusly:

I did read the second Ender novel, and from what I got, Orson Scott Card tried having his cake and eating it too. In reality, it doesn't work that way. Once you kill a species (or a race), you can't unkill it later and make it all better. Card's morality in the books is very confused and it left a sour taste in my mouth.

Tell me, Verilon, who is the focus of my attack here? The fictional character of Ender Wiggin or the actual writer of the novel who advanced the idea of "justifiable" genocide and the even more ludicrous idea that you can kill and later unkill a race to make it all better after the fact?

You also have to read past the second book. He has a heart; he finds a place for the Hive Queen AND saves another planet, AND finds a lover, AND adopts kids. See how well THAT sits with you.

Trying to have your cake and eat it too. Killing off a whole race and unkilling them later. Committing genocide and having a normal life afterward. To my perspective, that sounds like a writer desperately trying to escape the dilemma of having staked himself to a morally untenable position in the first place.

Again, Verilon, who's the focus of my overall attack? Who's morality am I calling into question here?

Originally posted by verilon:
Not to mention that he DIDN'T KNOW that he had done it for real, and that he DID feel remorse for it.

I could have accepted that IF Ender had committed suicide or simply had gone insane from the guilt of the act —and left it at that. Orson Scott Card however spent the two succeeding books (which came years apart) trying to justify it through the Appeal To Emotion argument. Remorse is fine, but some crimes cannot be washed away by any amount of remorse. We wouldn't forgive Adolf Eichmann on those grounds in the real world, and there's no real way to justify the concept of it in the pages of fiction either.

And once more, who is being questioned here? A fictional character or the real-life writer?

I see your point here, but this has veered WAAAY off-topic, so I think it best to drop it here. And Adolf Eichmann wasn't tried until the Nuremburg trials, giving him PLENTY of time to do whatever.

Funny, but here, you seem to understand who the focus of the argument is on and the overall context of the thread. Did you simply lose track, or did you decide to try to score a few cheap rhetorical points on me by ignoring the facts of the matter?

Actually, Eichmann wasn't brought to justice until the Mossad caught up with him in Argentina in the 1960s. He tried the Nuremburg Defence, but the point is that even if Eichmann had felt remorse for his genocidal actions, we would not accept that as a defence in the real world. He'd still go to the scaffold.

Perhaps it is here you think you've got me. Possible only if we decide to ignore context. The context is everything.

Originally posted by Moonstone Spider:
I really don't get what's so upsetting about Ender finding a way to bring the Buggers back. You don't like the plot twist ESC put in his novel? Write your own.

Because we don't get to unkill an entire race once we've shoved the last body into the ovens in the real world. I think OSC realised he'd dug himself into a moral cesspit on that one and tried writing his way out of it.

One more time, Verilon: who is the focus of my attack here? Who am I calling into question? A fictional character, or a writer? To whom does the overall context of my arguments point towards?

In his final Battle just the visible Vanguard of the enemy fleet outnumbered Ender's ships at least 1000:1, and they had technological superiority as well. And Ender managed to break through their lines and pull a victory off (with his whole Jefe helping.) Thrawn's never managed anything remotely like that kind of a victory.

He won by launching a Big Dumb Weapon at the Bugger homeworld —and this being in what he thought was a way to fail a wargammes simulation. He won't have the Big Dumb Weapon and he won't be in a simulator.

Perhaps it is here you believe you've got me. Only if you ignore the initial postings I made in which I did concede that Ender was just a brainwash victim and ignore the subsequent context.

Originally posted by Patrick Degan:
Fiction is also where we test moral and ethical ideas. Try applying justifications for genocide, either active or through depraved indifference, from any work of fiction to the real world. Do they still work?

It is possible, in fiction. Anything and everything is possible in fiction. Thusly, you force me to reiterate.

Study carefully the above quotes. Am I referring to a novel plot, or a thesis presented in said plot? And where does that indicate the overall context of the debate is oriented?

In a word, bullshit. Anybody who has a clue about the difference between right and wrong can see immediately what's inherently wrong about attempting to justify the annihilation of an entire race.

And there you have it in a nutshell. The attack is upon the writer and his thesis, not upon a fictional character. The only way you can justify your charge is either to read something into that record which is not there or simply take quotes out of context.

The plain record says otherwise.

[haas mark]

Three points: you fail to determine what my POV is

I see your point here, but this has veered WAAAY off-topic, so I think it best to drop it here. And Adolf Eichmann wasn't tried until the Nuremburg trials, giving him PLENTY of time to do whatever.

Funny, but here, you seem to understand who the focus of the argument is on and the overall context of the thread. Did you simply lose track, or did you decide to try to score a few cheap rhetorical points on me by ignoring the facts of the matter?

Here, I was referring to the subject matter known as the topic of the thread.

More than myself says you attack Ender's morals not Card's. I think you are trying to cop out by saying that it's bullshit and refusing to look at things from a higher plane. I see where you're coming from, now try to see where I'm coming from.

[Patrick Degan]

Three points: you fail to determine what my POV is

Excuse me, but are you not attempting to justify the novel?

I see your point here, but this has veered WAAAY off-topic, so I think it best to drop it here. And Adolf Eichmann wasn't tried until the Nuremburg trials, giving him PLENTY of time to do whatever.

Funny, but here, you seem to understand who the focus of the argument is on and the overall context of the thread. Did you simply lose track, or did you decide to try to score a few cheap rhetorical points on me by ignoring the facts of the matter?

Here, I was referring to the subject matter known as the topic of the thread.

Not quite, and you know it. We both know what the thread is ostensibly about and on what topic the discussion was diverted.

More than myself says you attack Ender's morals not Card's.

And how does the above record support that argument? The only way anybody could get that out of the record is to take statements out of context or lose track of the overall thread of the argument.

I think you are trying to cop out by saying that it's bullshit and refusing to look at things from a higher plane. I see where you're coming from, now try to see where I'm coming from.

Then perhaps you could clarify your position before any further misunderstanding arises.

[haas mark]

Three points: you fail to determine what my POV is

Excuse me, but are you not attempting to justify the novel?

I continuously ask you to see my point of view...defending the novel. YOu refuse to do so.

I see your point here, but this has veered WAAAY off-topic, so I think it best to drop it here. And Adolf Eichmann wasn't tried until the Nuremburg trials, giving him PLENTY of time to do whatever.

Funny, but here, you seem to understand who the focus of the argument is on and the overall context of the thread. Did you simply lose track, or did you decide to try to score a few cheap rhetorical points on me by ignoring the facts of the matter?

Here, I was referring to the subject matter known as the topic of the thread.

Not quite, and you know it. We both know what the thread is ostensibly about and on what topic the discussion was diverted.

How are you to know what I meant? I seriously had meant we had gone off the topic for this thread!

More than myself says you attack Ender's morals not Card's.

And how does the above record support that argument? The only way anybody could get that out of the record is to take statements out of context or lose track of the overall thread of the argument.

I think you are trying to cop out by saying that it's bullshit and refusing to look at things from a higher plane. I see where you're coming from, now try to see where I'm coming from.

Then perhaps you could clarify your position before any further misunderstanding arises.

I think the book's not bullshit. Enough of a position for ya?

And why do you ignore Stormbringer's posts? Do they make a point you can't defend?

[Patrick Degan]

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).

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.

[Patrick Degan]

I continuously ask you to see my point of view...defending the novel. YOu refuse to do so.

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

How are you to know what I meant? I seriously had meant we had gone off the topic for this thread!

Now you're being deliberately obtuse. You insisted that I had contradicted my own words, then challenged me to do your own work to prove it.

I think the book's not bullshit. Enough of a position for ya?

And it's my position that the book IS bullshit. Again, sorry if this doesn't suit you.

And why do you ignore Stormbringer's posts? Do they make a point you can't defend?

Cute. Perhaps having to wade through the record of my own postings to demonstrate your inability to prove a charge you recklessly throw out delays me from doing so?

[haas mark]

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).

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.

That it did not.

And can you justify the Buggers moral system? That they went rampant, dissociating entire planets without a second thought? How is that different from Ender destroying one planet with the Little Doctor? The Buggers went around and destroyed entire planets, committing Xenocide MULTIPLE times, far more numerous than Ender ever had and ever would.

[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.

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.

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.

[haas mark]

I continuously ask you to see my point of view...defending the novel. YOu refuse to do so.

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.

[haas mark]

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.

[Patrick Degan]

I've had this debate before. I know all the angles. Let's see if you can keep up.

And can you justify the Buggers moral system? That they went rampant, dissociating entire planets without a second thought? How is that different from Ender destroying one planet with the Little Doctor? The Buggers went around and destroyed entire planets, committing Xenocide MULTIPLE times, far more numerous than Ender ever had and ever would.

The Buggers' moral system is immaterial to arguments as to whether genocide is justifiable or not. By that logic, you can justify slaughtering every German down to the last child and dog at the end of World War II.

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.

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.

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.

[haas mark]

I've had this debate before. I know all the angles. Let's see if you can keep up.

And can you justify the Buggers moral system? That they went rampant, dissociating entire planets without a second thought? How is that different from Ender destroying one planet with the Little Doctor? The Buggers went around and destroyed entire planets, committing Xenocide MULTIPLE times, far more numerous than Ender ever had and ever would.

The Buggers' moral system is immaterial to arguments as to whether genocide is justifiable or not. By that logic, you can justify slaughtering every German down to the last child and dog at the end of World War II.

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?

[haas mark]

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.

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).

[haas mark]

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.

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.

[Patrick Degan]

I continuously ask you to see my point of view...defending the novel. YOu refuse to do so.

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.

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.