They executed Marine Corps prisoners samurai style to show that they honored and respected them.
Executing prisoners: good or bad?
They executed Marine Corps prisoners samurai style to show that they honored and respected them.
Executing prisoners: good or bad?
They also tortured them and subjected them to forced labor. Mistreatment is not relative.
Executing prisoners: Good or bad?
What do you think?
I have said it a million times, just because people say something wrong is something good does not change what it is. You canât tell me that the Japanese actually believed they were doing the marines any favors.
I can tell you that. Even you told me that, though you did it inadvertently. You endorsed Bushido as honorable. executing prisoners was acceptable according to the Samurai way. You only endorsed it because you chose to interpret it I na western way. Not in their eastern way.
Executing prisoners is not Bushido.
Samurai executed other samurai defeated in battle as a form of honor.
Sure, as was the custom, as were mutually agreed upon rule of warfare that all parties subscribed too in times of war. That does not really apply to the Japanese to forced POWs into forced labor camps and torture. You are trying really hard here to put me into this âgotchaâ moment, thatâs never going to happen⌠Because this is actually a very simple idea. Wrong is wrong, even when people say it is right, and Honor is honorable, even when people claim something is dishonorable. Itâs not edgy, but itâs the truth. Sorry.
So. it was right for them but not for modern westerners. HuhâŚ
Sounds like reletavism to me.
Not necessarily. Consent is important. And Samurai were professional warriors who knew what they were subscribing too. This was not the custom for the typical peasantry that made up the armies.
But possible?
When Europeans went and fought actual samurais, they would have been treated as Samurais treat the ones they fight. Any Europeans that were honored would have been honored in the same way. As it would have been right according to the Samurais. You are currently trying to apply new rules of consent and understanding that the Samurais gave no credence to. This means that your current definition of bushido is new and based on your own western values. And not on their own values.
Dude if they are an evil faction then blizzard should label them so. Donât sell us wc3 horde, thralls horde and give us this
People tended to hate them for slaughtering civilians. A lot of the worst people in history had some form of family values. That did nothing for their victims as people tend to dehumanize their victims so they donât have to think of them as equals like their own family.
Itâs like you think it is unreasonable for professional warriors to expect to die for losing in warfareâŚ
This is false. The Samurai was a very noble status, and their customs were reserved for Samurai.
They did though.
No, you have a misunderstanding of Bushido and honor as a whole it seems. You are doing a very bad job are trying to lure me into a âGotchaâ moment. At the vest best, you can say some codes of honor werenât honorable, in which case you would be right, but its a perversion of honor, not honor itself.
No, people hated them because they pillaged towns, which does not necessarily mean civilians were killed. Soldiers and an armed peasantry, perhaps, but unarmored civilian deaths is a matter of debate.
You also assumed all Vikings would adhere to the Wisdom of Havamal as well, which is not necessarily the case.
Not at all. My specific question to you was âExecuting prisoners: Good or bad?â You seems to imply that there was a specific right answer for that question.
So, prisoners may well have been slaughtered as non equals unworthy of any honor or respect? HuhâŚ
O.I.C.
I think Iâm doing a very good job of demonstrating that your definition of honor isnât universal among societies that value honor.
You seem to think âup for debateâ means it didnât happen. but Odin was a bloody god. You can try to claim only "badâ Viking killed and ravished but it would be a weak argument to try to turn Viking faith into a bunch of hippies.
There is, and itâs bad. War is also bad in general. Which is why codes of honor are important. Mutually agreed upon rules of engagement.
No, most of them time prisoners were released unless they were of a high status. Not only because thatâs the honorable thing to do, but also because there is nothing to rule if you slaughter the local peasantry of a region. It was more profitable to keep them alive, which is arguably more dehumanizing.
Your argument seems to be âPeople act dishonorably, therefore honor is found wanting as a moral or ethical tool.â Which is just dishonest.
Not really. You have yet to land a single point.
No, it certainly happened, but you seem to think that it is due to the Vikingâs cultural background and code of honor, which is expressly what is being debated to be not the case. I actually think it is an absurd notion to say that someoneâs code of honor would make them more blood thirsty, when humans have proven to be blood thirsty by themselves.
He is a God of Death and Wisdom. So yes, he is not very pleasant.
The âViking Faithâ
You know, Odinsim, Astarau, Heathenry, Paganism, or whatever you want to call it, was a faith practiced by a large number of pre-Christian Europeans, not just Vikings. Your ignorance is showing.
The very fact that codes of honor need to regulate bad acts demonstrates relativism.
Your refusal to acknolege them means little.
How? Wrong is wrong⌠Just because people make justifications for wrong action does not mean it is right. The whole purpose of moral codes and codes of Honor is to keep oneself grounded and honest about ones own actions⌠Otherwise we make justifications for our own wrong doings.
Because, one does not universally define wrong or right for everyone else. Oneâs personal experinces donât make the universal definition of wrong or right. They only do so for one.
e.g.: Specifically executing a prisoner to honor them is honest about ones actions. But it can still be wrong for the person being executed.
Everyone knows when something is wrong, they just justify it.
Personal experiences are not relevant, merely excuses.
Could be, it depends which side is evil and which side is good. In a case where neither side is either, then both are wrong.