We Do Not Kneel

[Salus Maior]

I would say yes, this dictatorship is capable of that. Not to mention that you have to publicly kneel to said dictator for peace to happen. If he wasn't intent on humiliating you, wouldn't we be signing a treaty somewhere rather than that?

If you kneel, you're no longer a threat to power, and anyone sensible would let you off with a prison sentence at most. Does this dictatorship have a history of going back on deals? Again, are they more organized or a bunch of thugs with guns? Is the dictator an idiot or smart?

The Deal that this dictatorship is offering (if you read the OP), is that if you kneel, you and your band become slave soldiers for the dictatorship's foreign wars.

[Shnercropolis]

If you kneel, you're no longer a threat to power, and anyone sensible would let you off with a prison sentence at most. Does this dictatorship have a history of going back on deals? Again, are they more organized or a bunch of thugs with guns? Is the dictator an idiot or smart?

The Deal that this dictatorship is offering (if you read the OP), is that if you kneel, you and your band become slave soldiers for the dictatorship's foreign wars.

Yes, my thinking is that it would be much easier to avoid getting shot in a war than with people pointing guns directly at you. I could surrender, I could desert, I might get caught up in something unexpected, but if I don't kneel there is a 100% chance I die.

[Salus Maior]

The Deal that this dictatorship is offering (if you read the OP), is that if you kneel, you and your band become slave soldiers for the dictatorship's foreign wars.

Yes, my thinking is that it would be much easier to avoid getting shot in a war than with people pointing guns directly at you. I could surrender, I could desert, I might get caught up in something unexpected, but if I don't kneel there is a 100% chance I die.

Great, you desert. I suppose you're going to leave your band with the army?

There's a lot of *I* centric statements here, you're supposed to be a leader responsible for a revolutionary movement. If you take the army-slavery route, there's a big chance that you're going to get a lot of your followers killed in a war they don't believe in, especially when they're going to essentially be cannon fodder according to the OP.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Yes, my thinking is that it would be much easier to avoid getting shot in a war than with people pointing guns directly at you. I could surrender, I could desert, I might get caught up in something unexpected, but if I don't kneel there is a 100% chance I die.

Great, you desert. I suppose you're going to leave your band with the army?

There's a lot of *I* centric statements here, you're supposed to be a leader responsible for a revolutionary movement. If you take the army-slavery route, there's a big chance that you're going to get a lot of your followers killed in a war they don't believe in, especially when they're going to essentially be cannon fodder according to the OP.

Why not just surrender your entire band?

[Shnercropolis]

Yes, my thinking is that it would be much easier to avoid getting shot in a war than with people pointing guns directly at you. I could surrender, I could desert, I might get caught up in something unexpected, but if I don't kneel there is a 100% chance I die.

Great, you desert. I suppose you're going to leave your band with the army?

There's a lot of *I* centric statements here, you're supposed to be a leader responsible for a revolutionary movement. If you take the army-slavery route, there's a big chance that you're going to get a lot of your followers killed in a war they don't believe in, especially when they're going to essentially be cannon fodder according to the OP.

Better than getting all of them killed for what they believe in.

[Salus Maior]

Great, you desert. I suppose you're going to leave your band with the army?

There's a lot of *I* centric statements here, you're supposed to be a leader responsible for a revolutionary movement. If you take the army-slavery route, there's a big chance that you're going to get a lot of your followers killed in a war they don't believe in, especially when they're going to essentially be cannon fodder according to the OP.

Why not just surrender your entire band?

To the government? That would be counter-productive to the kneelers' point that if they kneel they can just re-arm the rebellion and get back to fighting. Which, as I pointed out, they wouldn't be able to do anyway.

[Conscentia]

Yes, my thinking is that it would be much easier to avoid getting shot in a war than with people pointing guns directly at you. I could surrender, I could desert, I might get caught up in something unexpected, but if I don't kneel there is a 100% chance I die.

Great, you desert. I suppose you're going to leave your band with the army?

There's a lot of *I* centric statements here, you're supposed to be a leader responsible for a revolutionary movement. If you take the army-slavery route, there's a big chance that you're going to get a lot of your followers killed in a war they don't believe in, especially when they're going to essentially be cannon fodder according to the OP.

They can desert with you.

Also, nothing the in the OP says that your followers are lemmings. Just because you kneel and tell them to surrender doesn't mean they will surrender, especially if you had the brains to plan for the eventuality of your capture.

[Infected Mushroom]

That argument sits fine with me. Just be aware that your ''increased survival'' might not be much in practice (it may even be just a few additional seconds). But yes, you are gambling for at least some increased probability of a higher extension, it just might be a SLIGHT extension.

I have no problem with that theoretical argument. If you value length of life for its own sake.

The argument that sits less well with me is those that go

''I'll pretend to kneel and then later on I'll betray the dictatorship because I'm so much smarter than the dictatorship.''

I think those types of arguments assume too much and necessarily require some assumed stupidity/incompetence/naivety on the part of the dictatorship. Yet in the OP nowhere did I say we are to throw out our common sense intuition/experience/knowledge about how dictatorships and authoritarian regimes tend to operate.

It sounds like we found the glaring flaw in your honor before reason thought experiment and so you suddenly twisted the wording of the OP to try and invalidate our arguments.

In other words, it sounds like you're being disingenuous out of spite.

No. That is not so.

Read the OP closely. You'll see that my interpretation is the plain meaning.

[Conscentia]

[...]No. That is not so.

Read the OP closely. You'll see that my interpretation is the plain meaning.

Given how many people interpreted the point of the question as "die for a cause, or abandon it and live?", obviously your interpretation isn't at all plain.

[Shnercropolis]

[...]No. That is not so.

Read the OP closely. You'll see that my interpretation is the plain meaning.

Given how many people interpreted the point of the question as "die for a cause, or abandon it and live?", obviously your interpretation isn't at all plain.

we're just being analytical because the OP is kind of biased.

[Camicon]

I find it ironic that IM gives us a thought experiment, the point of which is to see how people interpret both the scenario and how they respond to it, and then tells people that they're wrong for responding the way they do, because they misunderstood the scenario.

[Infected Mushroom]

[...]No. That is not so.

Read the OP closely. You'll see that my interpretation is the plain meaning.

Given how many people interpreted the point of the question as "die for a cause, or abandon it and live?", obviously your interpretation isn't at all plain.

The key word is in the first major paragraph.

''You are told...''

You are told... not if you do X, then Y will happen.

You are TOLD by a party that if you do X they will do Y. Its a representation by that party, not a statement of fact. Y is not a fact until it happens (if, and then there's the question of whether or not its done in good faith if it is done).

[Infected Mushroom]

I find it ironic that IM gives us a thought experiment, the point of which is to see how people interpret both the scenario and how they respond to it, and then tells people that they're wrong for responding the way they do, because they misunderstood the scenario.

where in the OP does the OP say that is the point of the OP?

[Camicon]

I find it ironic that IM gives us a thought experiment, the point of which is to see how people interpret both the scenario and how they respond to it, and then tells people that they're wrong for responding the way they do, because they misunderstood the scenario.

where does the OP say that is the point of the OP?

You say that we are misunderstanding the scenario in your OP. Yet, you misunderstand the purpose of the format of your OP. You gave us a thought experiment: interpreting the scenario posed is part of a thought experiment.

[Infected Mushroom]

where does the OP say that is the point of the OP?

You say that we are misunderstanding the scenario in your OP. Yet, you misunderstand the purpose of the format of your OP. You gave us a thought experiment: interpreting the scenario posed is part of a thought experiment.

You are free to interpret it, within the confines of the literal words.

And the literal words are ''You are told...'' by the dictatorship that if you X they will do Y.

TOLD. Its a representation by the dictatorship.

[Camicon]

You say that we are misunderstanding the scenario in your OP. Yet, you misunderstand the purpose of the format of your OP. You gave us a thought experiment: interpreting the scenario posed is part of a thought experiment.

You are free to interpret it, within the confines of the literal words.

And the literal words are ''You are told...'' by the dictatorship that if you X they will do Y.

TOLD. Its a representation by the dictatorship.

You say that we are misunderstanding the scenario in your OP. Yet, you misunderstand the purpose of the format of your OP. You gave us a thought experiment: interpreting the scenario posed is part of a thought experiment.

That we would live after kneeling is an interpretation of the scenario you've given us. You spent an entire paragraph telling us as much.

[Conscentia]

Given how many people interpreted the point of the question as "die for a cause, or abandon it and live?", obviously your interpretation isn't at all plain.

The key word is in the first major paragraph.

''You are told...''

You are told... not if you do X, then Y will happen.

You are TOLD by a party that if you do X they will do Y. Its a representation by that party, not a statement of fact. Y is not a fact until it happens (if, and then there's the question of whether or not its done in good faith if it is done).

You made it way too subtle if you did that deliberately from the start, and didn't just change it now, as people did not interpret "you are told" as being significant to the point.
They thought the premise was "do you value your principles or your life more?", not "you will die - to kneel or not to kneel?". Probably because the latter is a dull question, while the former is actually interesting.

[Urran]

I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees. I wouldn't kneel. Id grandly lay down my life for a cause that I believe in.

[The Army Republic of Prussia]

I will not Kneel. Execution or the battlefield fighting for a cause you do not believe in. Neither is a pleasant death, but if we do not kneel the revolution will live on. viva la revolucion!

[New Frenco Empire]

Look at this, more absurd scenarios fueled by your GoT fantasies.

Same thing I always say to myself if I was ever going to be executed; put up a fight. Leap for a guard's weapon or headbutt the executioner or something. Better a quick death and a final show of resistance to whoever cares than letting the enemy turn it into a spectacle.

[Infected Mushroom]

You are free to interpret it, within the confines of the literal words.

And the literal words are ''You are told...'' by the dictatorship that if you X they will do Y.

TOLD. Its a representation by the dictatorship.

You say that we are misunderstanding the scenario in your OP. Yet, you misunderstand the purpose of the format of your OP. You gave us a thought experiment: interpreting the scenario posed is part of a thought experiment.

That we would live after kneeling is an interpretation of the scenario you've given us. You spent an entire paragraph telling us as much.

No. Please read carefully.

There are some things more important than life and death such as belief in Freedom and Honor. We only have a limited number of days to make a real difference and to take a stand in this world. It is better to leave the world with some dignity than to betray your ideals.

Death is not an easy thing to face and neither is pain, but it's a true test of character.

Nowhere in here does it say that kneeling means you will live and not be betrayed later on. I never made that representation; the dictatorship in my hypothetical does.

Read the above carefully. I said there are things more important than life and death but I never said that one situation necessarily lead to life.

''Death is not an easy thing to face...'' Again, that doesn't say anything about the alternative guaranteeing a dramatically lengthened life or a real chance to backstab the dictatorship.

You're reading through biased glasses, not reading the words literally and taking in their limited literal meaning.

[The Two Jerseys]

Given how many people interpreted the point of the question as "die for a cause, or abandon it and live?", obviously your interpretation isn't at all plain.

The key word is in the first major paragraph.

''You are told...''

You are told... not if you do X, then Y will happen.

You are TOLD by a party that if you do X they will do Y. Its a representation by that party, not a statement of fact. Y is not a fact until it happens (if, and then there's the question of whether or not its done in good faith if it is done).

You conveniently skipped over the fact that they'd also have to tell us that they'd kill us if we don't kneel. Which is a representation by that party, not a statement of fact.

[Tyrnica]

I would not kneel. My stubborn pride would see to that. I may have been considering submission at first, but with the terms that we would have to serve on the front lines, I would not kneel.

[Camicon]

That we would live after kneeling is an interpretation of the scenario you've given us. You spent an entire paragraph telling us as much.

No. Please read carefully.

There are some things more important than life and death such as belief in Freedom and Honor. We only have a limited number of days to make a real difference and to take a stand in this world. It is better to leave the world with some dignity than to betray your ideals.

Death is not an easy thing to face and neither is pain, but it's a true test of character.

Nowhere in here does it say that kneeling means you will live and not be betrayed later on. I never made that representation; the dictatorship in my hypothetical does.

Read the above carefully. I said there are things more important than life and death but I never said that one situation necessarily lead to life.

''Death is not an easy thing to face...'' Again, that doesn't say anything about the alternative guaranteeing a dramatically lengthened life or a real chance to backstab the dictatorship.

You're reading through biased glasses, not reading the words literally and taking in their limited literal meaning.

I repeat myself:

You gave us a thought experiment: interpreting the scenario posed is part of a thought experiment.

That we would live after kneeling is an interpretation of the scenario you've given us.

[Infected Mushroom]

The key word is in the first major paragraph.

''You are told...''

You are told... not if you do X, then Y will happen.

You are TOLD by a party that if you do X they will do Y. Its a representation by that party, not a statement of fact. Y is not a fact until it happens (if, and then there's the question of whether or not its done in good faith if it is done).

You conveniently skipped over the fact that they'd also have to tell us that they'd kill us if we don't kneel. Which is a representation by that party, not a statement of fact.

No its in a separate paragraph for a reason.