NationStates

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:53 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Alvecia wrote:Well then, that’s not balanced then is it?

Appeals to Antiquity are fallacious. Just cause something happened generations ago, doesn’t necessarily mean it has any bearing on today. For example, drug use (something I know you aren’t keen on) goes as far back as antiquity.

I'm just saying, there have been situations in the past where we've (as a society) found it to be acceptable

I thought you were only concerned about the morality of this action. What may or may not have been acceptable in some historical society is not relevant.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:54 am**

Ifreann wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
I'm just saying, there have been situations in the past where we've (as a society) found it to be acceptable

I thought you were only concerned about the morality of this action. What may or may not have been acceptable in some historical society is not relevant.

it plays a part in informing my moral judgement in this case

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:54 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Alvecia wrote:Which, as I noted, is an appeal to antiquity.

Out of curiosity, would you advocate the same punishment if the person almost killed was a Private, not a General?

I would be okay with it

What if the person almost killed was an enlisted man, not an officer?

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:55 am**

Ifreann wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
I'm just saying, there have been situations in the past where we've (as a society) found it to be acceptable

I thought you were only concerned about the morality of this action. What may or may not have been acceptable in some historical society is not relevant.

He is appealing to historical examples as an authority, but dismisses examples from WWII for some strange and convenient reason. :roll:

Infected Mushroom wrote:I see no reason to be concerned about what the Germans did or didn't do in World War II; as it stands, I don't really care

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:55 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Ifreann wrote:I thought you were only concerned about the morality of this action. What may or may not have been acceptable in some historical society is not relevant.

it plays a part in informing my moral judgement in this case

Why?

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:56 am**

Heloin wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
I would be okay with it

Under this logic the general should be executed immediately for sending soldiers to die in the battlefield. Think of all the lives he wasted by not going out alone with only a sword to face the other general, because honour.

hmmm... I don't think so

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:56 am**

Ifreann wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
it plays a part in informing my moral judgement in this case

Why?

Because the only sense of morality that matters is the made up story book version of medieval and ancient societies.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:57 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Heloin wrote:Under this logic the general should be executed immediately for sending soldiers to die in the battlefield. Think of all the lives he wasted by not going out alone with only a sword to face the other general, because honour.

hmmm... I don't think so

Why not?

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:59 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Heloin wrote:Under this logic the general should be executed immediately for sending soldiers to die in the battlefield. Think of all the lives he wasted by not going out alone with only a sword to face the other general, because honour.

hmmm... I don't think so

What about my earlier question: had the general's side lost the war, should the general have been summarily executed for the many soldiers (including those generals) that he killed on the other side during battle?

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:59 am**

Alvecia wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
hmmm... I don't think so

Why not?

there is no obligation to go about waging a war in any single way

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:00 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Heloin wrote:Under this logic the general should be executed immediately for sending soldiers to die in the battlefield. Think of all the lives he wasted by not going out alone with only a sword to face the other general, because honour.

hmmm... I don't think so

Kid shots general. Dishonerable, must be killed at once for no fucking reason. General sends millions of men to there graves will siting back in a room drinking fine wine. Great guy.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:01 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Alvecia wrote:Why not?

there is no obligation to go about waging a war in any single way

That doesn’t really answer the question. If the kid is culpable for attempting to kill the general, why isn’t the general culpable for attempting to kill the entire opposing army?

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:02 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Alvecia wrote:Why not?

there is no obligation to go about waging a war in any single way

The Geneva Conventions? There really is no way that you could have missed that in the course of this thread.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:02 am**

Heloin wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
hmmm... I don't think so

Kid shots general. Dishonerable, must be killed at once for no fucking reason. General sends millions of men to there graves will siting back in a room drinking fine wine. Great guy.

Kid shoots and misses, at that.

Looks like everything's coming up roses for this general.

The New California Republic wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
there is no obligation to go about waging a war in any single way

The Geneva Conventions? There really is no way that you could have missed that in the course of this thread.

I think some see the Geneva Convention more as "The Geneva Set of Very Loose Guidelines That You Can Follow If You Really, Really Want To (But Who Really Gives A Toss... We Don't)"

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:03 am**

Just your average nihilistic piece of shit (me) passing by. Don’t mind me.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:05 am**

Alvecia wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
there is no obligation to go about waging a war in any single way

That doesn’t really answer the question. If the kid is culpable for attempting to kill the general, why isn’t the general culpable for attempting to kill the entire opposing army?

*Waits for IM to mention rules of war, which he had to dismiss earlier, but now needs to actually use to justify his position*

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:09 am**

Alvecia wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
there is no obligation to go about waging a war in any single way

That doesn’t really answer the question. If the kid is culpable for attempting to kill the general, why isn’t the general culpable for attempting to kill the entire opposing army?

because its his job

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:09 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Alvecia wrote:That doesn’t really answer the question. If the kid is culpable for attempting to kill the general, why isn’t the general culpable for attempting to kill the entire opposing army?

because its his job

Called it.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:10 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Alvecia wrote:That doesn’t really answer the question. If the kid is culpable for attempting to kill the general, why isn’t the general culpable for attempting to kill the entire opposing army?

because its his job

So if the kid had instead been an enemy soldier, the general would be morally in the wrong if he was to execute them?

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:11 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Alvecia wrote:That doesn’t really answer the question. If the kid is culpable for attempting to kill the general, why isn’t the general culpable for attempting to kill the entire opposing army?

because its his job

The kid had become a combatant. So it was his job to attack and cripple the enemy forces. I can't think of many better ways one person could really seriously cripple the enemy forces other then trying to take out it's command structure.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:11 am**

Alvecia wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
because its his job

So if the kid had instead been an enemy soldier, the general would be morally in the wrong if he was to execute them?

Honestly, I'd still be okay with the execution

the key is that they personally took up arms and personally tried to kill the general from a hidden position

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:11 am**

Heloin wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
because its his job

The kid had become a combatant. So it was his job to attack and cripple the enemy forces. I can't think of many better ways one person could really seriously cripple the enemy forces other then trying to take out it's command structure.

you mean, the kid chose to be an insurgent?

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:11 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Alvecia wrote:So if the kid had instead been an enemy soldier, the general would be morally in the wrong if he was to execute them?

Honestly, I'd still be okay with the execution

the key is that they personally took up arms and personally tried to kill the general from a hidden position

But they’re just doing their job.
If the kid/ soldier is morally culpable for doing their job, why isn’t the general morally culpable for doing their job?

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:12 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Alvecia wrote:So if the kid had instead been an enemy soldier, the general would be morally in the wrong if he was to execute them?

Honestly, I'd still be okay with the execution

the key is that they personally took up arms and personally tried to kill the general from a hidden position

That does nothing to explain your position, absolutely nothing.

Posted: **Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:14 am**

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Heloin wrote:The kid had become a combatant. So it was his job to attack and cripple the enemy forces. I can't think of many better ways one person could really seriously cripple the enemy forces other then trying to take out it's command structure.

you mean, the kid chose to be an insurgent?

No he accidentally became one.

What else does actively taking a weapon to kill an enemy general make you? A Teletubbie?

NationStates

The General and the Kid