There are quite equally as many ereviens on both sides (my block list is full of them)
honestly, the quantity has never been as interesting to me as the quality per each faction. i kinda think the faction zealots are on a horseshoe, or whatever image can be used to describe similitude of extremes
1 Like
Heās is fighting a fight
2 Likes
Erevien for Warchief!
Erevien would just be Garrosh/Slyvanas but 100x more incompetent. The Fifth War would last a week and the soldiers of Orgrimmar would carry him to invading Alliance forces on a silver platter and say āgo wild.ā
That wouldnāt be so bad considering how long Siege of Orgrimmar dragged on.
Heād go wandering off into Amani territory to try to recruit them as the new backbone of the Horde and heād just never be seen again
To be fair to him, heād also think them killing him is justified since he is a belf, we gotta commend the logic following through
Say what you will about him, heās a man of principles.
Heād be seen again, on a dinner tray served as a delicious Jerked Elf platter.
And I will keep fighting until I get what I want.
Setting aside that the US has an infamously broken justice system, in the scenario described, the innocent man will stay in jail (the evidence was compelling) while the murderer would be freed (because their trial was shoddy). Itās obviously preferable to have a competent system in place, but if you think the outcomes are moral, I really donāt think we have common ground here.
Do you think Iām arguing against competent systems? I believe competent systems are important because they are more likely to get it right, but if a āfairā trial somehow still convicts a man wrongly, that is still an immoral outcome.
You know, Iām not sure you actually understand my point. Maybe I havenāt been direct enough.
You seem to think my issue is the Ticking Time Bomb Problem itself, like I think the thought experiment in abstract is evil. I donāt. My problem is the way itās been used for hundreds of years to justify actual torture in the real world, despite not reflecting the realities of torture. You want me to say the Alleria/Turalyon situation is a variation of the Ticking Bomb Problem? Fine, it is. My argument isnāt about semantics.
When it comes to torture, you can simply declare it wrong in all contexts with a āsniff testā - but for Tolkienās characters, you need to consider their perspectives while saying that violent racial prejudice is ānot entirely morally correct,ā even though morality is derived from the real world through which we assess media.
I didnāt think of it at the time, but thereās also the more obvious comparison of Gandalf torturing Gollum (after Aragorn ātamedā him by starvation) in order to find out the truth about the Ring. Are they villains then?
And Iām telling you that itās not singular. The US, EU, UK, Merriam-Webster, etc. all give very similar definitions that specifically mention the intentional infliction of pain or suffering. I have not suggested, and am not suggesting, thatās the only thing wrong with torture, but it is what makes torture torture.
Make the argument to whom? Who are they supposed to be justifying the act to here? You, the deontoligist, are the one saying itās unequivocally wrong. The utilitarian details are useless to your argument, arenāt they?
It strikes you as backpedaling while I go on to explain why itās a large part of why torture is considering barbaric, making it unjustifiable even from a teleological viewpoint?
My exact wording? Maybe it wasnāt your intention, but adding the world only makes it sound as if I see no problem with the cruel suffering torture causes.
Which I have no problem with in abstract.
Was your point not that itās absurd to make a distinction between how barbaric instances of torture are? Or do you think itās only absurd to make that distinction based on if the torturing actually accomplished anything?
I brought up Turalyon and Alleriaās reluctance, and Jainaās strongly negative reaction, already. I donāt just mean how people in the world think of it (let alone the bizarre metaphysical underpinnings of Shadowlands, which you seem traumatized by), but the details of the characters and their situation. You seem to understand this when talking about Lord of the Rings (āit matters for the same reason it would matter if we were assessing any moral consideration, everā), but here, you can just do a sniff test and declare them villains?
I mostly just think it was a weak rhetorical device.
As Iāve said a few times, the outcomes are generally secondary to the actions taken. The outcome isnāt in isolation. The outcome is moral or immoral based on the actions that led to it.
/shrug
The Crusades.
This discussion about morality feels like another Star Trek episode.
1 Like
Okay? Itās not my rhetorical device. I brought up the possibility of an innocent person being arrested, and Irenaus modified that example to explain their philosophy on the process being more morally important than the outcome.
Yes, I understand what youāre saying. Iām telling you I fundamentally disagree.
Without explaining why.
Though I was only reiterating that since you said āif you think the outcomes are moralā, I didnāt exactly agree with the phrasing.
To those people I sayā¦
The Muslims vs Christians war known as the Crusades ended over 700 years ago.
Everyone involved died over 600 years ago.
Get over it, already.
first, i do wanna say, i sincerely appreciate the time youāve given my posts, and the thought with which you reply. before anything else adversarial gets said, i wanna lead with that, because good conversation on these fora is tricky to come by.
i know your issue isnāt with the experiment itself, that was made readialy apparent when, aaaalllll the way back in the beginning of our conversation, you mentioned precisely that torture doesnāt work. so of course i know you know this! but the similitude of the experiment to the lore scene weāre discussing, in my mind, means that weāve already been shown the complication of scene.
i agree with you entirely! this is why i said earlier, what these characters know is truly to the point, because of course, what we know will affect our own judgements. this epistemic difference is part of what makes describing these things in very technical ways difficult. (or what itās worth, i believe even tolkien took turns in his mind in his later years as to whether the orcs were truly evil, though i will fully admit that this is just something iāve read about him)
i think so, yes. or at least, acting immorally.
thatās good! i think probably we agree on definitions, so i donāt really think thereās much to speak to here; definition-by-aggregate is, as iāve already said, my preferred method here. to be clear, i am using my words very precisely, and taking your words with similar precision, so my criticism of āsinglenessā isnāt to suggest inadequacy, but to simply reply to a āgotchaā you seemed to gesture to by bringing up a single definition. which is taking a long time to say, definitions really donāt need to be a problem here, because it doesnāt seem as though either of us are using a strange one for ātorture.ā
presumably, the third party weighing both. and that aside, the parties of the argument are less interesting than what the argument is; in this case, i point out thatās the actionability of the information, which has direct impact on the degree to which torture is morally permissible to the utilitarian.
wellā¦ yes. your initial stance was pretty narrow in its scope, hence
since it was, at the time, the only reason you gave.
this is it, yes. the absurdity lies in the assessment of āefficacy,ā not of barbarity.
thereās a bit to work thru here, so iāll parse it out incrementally and in no particular order:
iām not traumatized by the metaphysical implications of shadowlands, iām pointing out how goofy they are, and how that goofiness makes me disinclined from looking to any sort of diegetic sense of morality when seeking to assess the actions of really any characters for the setting.
but as to this question of āthe details of the character and their situation.ā first, tolkien is just a more complex writer than any of the wow writers are, so of course iām going to be more interested in the moral implications of the actions of his characters. thereās more to discuss there. but second, we did address the setting and circumstances, i thought, repeatedly. and third, circumstantial awareness doesnāt alter deontological principle. i mean, heck, that second criterion of the categorical principle (and the CP broadly) i mentioned earlier has its own weird thought experiments which are themselves counter-intuitive. i donāt think thereās a contradiction here.
edit: typos here and there, iām writing on mobile so lmk if anythingās confusing to read