The General and the Kid

[Ifreann]

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.

[Infected Mushroom]

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

[Ifreann]

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?

[The New California Republic]

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.

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

[Ifreann]

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?

[Infected Mushroom]

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

[Heloin]

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.

[Alvecia]

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?

[The Free Joy State]

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?

[Infected Mushroom]

hmmm... I don't think so

Why not?

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

[Heloin]

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.

[Alvecia]

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?

[The New California Republic]

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.

[The Free Joy State]

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.

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)"

[Deltanium]

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

[The New California Republic]

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*

[Infected Mushroom]

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

[The New California Republic]

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.

[Alvecia]

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?

[Heloin]

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.

[Infected Mushroom]

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

[Infected Mushroom]

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?

[Alvecia]

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?

[The New California Republic]

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.

[Heloin]

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?