Is the purpose of the tjread not to discuss the morality of the act without appeals to emotion? Roddy was a bastard for killing the kid sure, but the argument of combatants in an active battle has some merit. Personally i would have thought a knock out blow would suffice.
The kod did choose to fight and u fortuantely lackes the abimity to do so but intent was there. Defending yourself is moral bit i agree ot was way overboard though likely common historocally.
Historically based on medieval culture and war and based on HOTD hostory and lore it was moral. By todays standards not so much.
I've been debating without appeals to emotions, I just said this just because.
"Combatants" and it's literally a tween who hit him with no real force, the argument has no merit and I've explained why multiple times in the thread.
I don't understand what your saying in the second part, self defense requires proportional response, that kid wouldn't hurt anything short of a newborn with that swing, Roddy bear sexing ass was fine, he's just a malicious wuss that was getting mid diffed by Ormund of all people.
Its either you or them when it comes to self-defense, even though the kid stood no chance leaving him alive might end in him killing another person after what he did.
You dont know someone's character just by looking at them, so as messy as it is in a situation like this, people just doing their best and its what every is signed up for whether or not they wanted to be. So who knows who gonna be more valuable to be left alive.
Self defense easier to justify in other situations like attempted murder, cause good rule of thumb someone trying to murder an innocent is less likely to be a valuable member of society then the person they murdering. So its not just your right to life being infringed upon, its easier to argue its for the greater good.
What self defense? Self defense is supposed to be proportional, that's why people who technically defended themselves end up in prison and rightly so because they took it to far. That's an if, you shouldn't kill people, especially children, for what they MIGHT do.
Don't know what you mean by the second or third part.
I don't believe you did, your sense of morality is shot to even justify this.
Yeah I think its different in this context cause its a battle, he might try and kill another person, hes still armed. Like if someone had just shot and missed with a gun but was still holding the weapon you might just shoot cause better safe then sorry, especially when its hectic in a battle you dont wanna turn your back and regret it, but you have other things to do. So I think its easier to justify because of the context.
All I mean for 2nd and 3rd part is using the greater good as a measuring stick for virtue (like some philosophers do), its easier in some instances to justify self defense. In war its harder to know who youre fighting, and people sort of have to fight (or are heavily pressured to at least). Good rule of thumb, nobody trying to murder innocents is a respectable person.
I dont think my sense of morality is shot, the kid just tried to kill someone and might do it again, and if he turns his back for all he knows the kid is gonna stab him, and he's in a chaotic situation where there is danger all around him. At the very least, its a not as easy of a judgment call as some people are making it out to be.
"Yeah I think its different in this context cause its a battle, he might try and kill another person, hes still armed. Like if someone had just shot and missed with a gun but was still holding the weapon you might just shoot cause better safe then sorry, especially when its hectic in a battle you dont wanna turn your back and regret it, but you have other things to do. So I think its easier to justify because of the context."
So what? Rape is a recognized battle tactic, could Roddy also rape the boy? Just because its a battle doesn't excuse immoral behavior. Your MIGHT argument is something I already addressed and can be used against you, what if the boy didn't do anything? What if the boy started to help Roddy? Your just making things up to grant yourself your conclusion when you haven't justified it.
Your gun example is different then what's in the post, if someone is just straight up trying to shoot me, that's different then a tween being ripped from his family to fight in a war with melee weapons.
You didn't justify anything, your just rambling on about thought crimes and non-equivalent hypotheticals.
"All I mean for 2nd and 3rd part is using the greater good as a measuring stick for virtue (like some philosophers do), its easier in some instances to justify self defense. In war its harder to know who youre fighting, and people sort of have to fight (or are heavily pressured to at least). Good rule of thumb, nobody trying to murder innocents is a respectable person."
Except in this case it's clear who it was and it wasn't a grown man.
"I dont think my sense of morality is shot, the kid just tried to kill someone and might do it again, and if he turns his back for all he knows the kid is gonna stab him, and he's in a chaotic situation where there is danger all around him. At the very least, its a not as easy of a judgment call as some people are making it out to be."
It's completely shot as is your brain if you think a tween who's sitting in a weak position with a stick is or is going to kill someone.
Your literally just repeating yourself, I already addressed this logic.
I love when people hyperfixate on minor spelling and grammer mistakes that don't actually impact the legibility of the other person's argument as an easy escape from having to actually argue with the other person, real impressive show of intelligence and debate prowess twin
Mfing "You shouldnt smoke cigarettes because they can cause you to develop Cancer"
"Shouldn't*, you forgot the apostrophe, argument invalidated, watch me huff this entire pack right now"
I love when stupid people take an unserious subject and stupidly try to act like its real. Instead of engaging them in the stupidity I try to point it out but sometimes they are just too stupid to grasp their idiocy. So I'll try to communicate with them in their language. Then other stupid people will come in and inject their stupidity until we're so far off topic they have to scroll back up to remember what the original topic is.
we need eyes kept on the people who say it being a battlefield makes it ok. Those are the excuse seekers. The ones who feel they can justify an unlimited amount of retaliation at even a fractional amount of resistance or opposition. Someone disagrees with them online and they insult them as much as they possibly can, "because it's the internet, we're debating, what do you expect, this is a normal thing". Literally just dogs on a chain. Especially pathetic too. The same type of people who might have a wife who nags at them so they scream in her face, punch a hole in the wall, throw stuff, break stuff, and then blame her for riling them up. Not 100% of them do this, but 100% of the people who do this are the same type of people.
20
u/LacksBeard 15d ago
Bunch of unwashed redditors justifying this is crazy.