[BoVD]Well, since I can't seem to post this on Wizards forums...

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

No. People run the risk of displaying bad behavior by practicing bad behavior as play.

Proof, please. No anecdotes, no opinions. Proof only need apply.

 

[LostSoul]

One thing I''ve been thinking about.

What if there was no World War II, or Hitler?

Would we have seen an arms race between Democracies and Communism? Would it have resulted in a Cold War, or a hot one, where many small-yield warhead (re: Hiroshima) were used?

I think this discussion is interesting, even though I don't believe in evil. In the end, we're all just food for black holes.

 

[Storm Raven]

I think you missed the point. There was no discussion of economic loss in Washington's observation. The observation was how whites sufferred personally. They lost the spirit of being self sufficient. They may have had wealth, but what they lost as a result was incalcuable.

You miss my point: among other things, Booker claimed that things were being left undone, and that the slaves were not as effective at their jobs as free men would have been. This claim is not supported by the record analysis which shows that the slaves were much more effective at their jobs than free workers (insofar as their productivity could be measured).

In this case, I'm inclined to take the rest of Booker's statements about the "loss of self-sufficiency", which is a vague standard at best, with a grain of salt. If he doesn't even get the hard data correct, I'm not sure how his subjective analysis of the psychic effects on individuals can be trusted.

By the analysis you site, one could assume that ending of slavery was of moral loss to the country. I disagree.

I'm just questioning whether Booker's claims have any merit. Given that his claims about the economic aspects of slavery are verifiably false (or at least verifiably contrary to the data), assuming his claims about the degeneration of self-reliance to be true seems to me to be a stretch.

His primary claim appears to be that the sons of slaveholders didn't learn any useful trade. That's only a problem if you assume that learning a "useful trade" is a paramount goal. I am drawn to John Adam's quote (given in another context):

I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.

This sentiment clearly views learning a "useful trade" to be a subordinate goal to studying the arts. This was pretty much a general sentiment throughout most of upper class or upper middle class America through the Civil War. Booker was very focused on the idea that people should pursue trade based occupations, in this he was opposed by men like W.E.B. Dubois who believed that a full liberal education was the ultimate goal. It is no wonder that a society that valued education in philosophy, mathematics and art might not meet with Booker's approval.

I find it hard to credit Booker's analysis as having much merit.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yes, it is different. Soldiers get paid for their service. They still have rights (like voting).

Not always. In several societies, draftees are not paid (for example, in ancient Greece it was cheper to field an army than a navy, since sailors had to be paid, and drafted citizen-soldiers weren't). At many points in history, draftees had no rights to vote.

In many societies, draftees have no right to vote or similar political rights. In Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for example, draftees have no voting rights. In the sformer Soviet Union draftees had no voting rights. If that an equivalent to slavery.

I note you failed to answer my other question: was ancient Greek society evil? It viewed slaveholding as a virtuous act. Does that make their society evil?

You've gone to a lot of trouble to set up a complex what if. I find the scenario irrelevant. They were not imprisoning an evil god. If they were the actions still would have been good.

It isn't a very complex what if scenario, nor is it one that doesn't use genre conventions. Boiled down to the essentials it is:

(1) Evil god is imprisoned in a magical prison
(2) Orcs need humanoid sacrifices to keep prison secure
(3) Orcs kidnap humans to use as human sacrifices

This could easily be the plot of a Conan novel, or an Elric novel, or something involving any number of other classic genre staples and fit right in with the rest of the collection.

The question is not whether they were or not, the question is did you know beforehand? The orcs are attempting to accomplish a positive good: sacrifice of the few to save the many. You interfered with that. Are you still good?

Actions are not defined as good or evil because of their outcomes. A correllary is the end does not justify the means.

So you disagree that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few in some circumstances?

This assumes that extortion is not evil.

No, it assumes it is less evil than wholesale slaughter.

Respectively: yes, not available for all combatants, and we did not kill any helpless orcs.

So you let the helpless orcs go free?

It is clear that no matter what I say (from the fact that you make conclusions without the answers), you have determined our motivations were to kill orcs and revel in slaughter.

Thus far, you have provided no evidence that this was not the case. You appear to have pursued no other alternatives before wading in swords swinging. That indicates to me that you did little reflection other than to note that your character sheet had a "G" on it, and the orcs had an "E".

In fact our motivations were to free the people that were wrongfully kidnapped, not free for all slaugther. We did not kill anyone that did not raise a weapon against us. In addition to not killing women and children and non-combatant males, we freed other enslaved orcs rather than killing them as evil creatures.

But you killed the other orcs wholesale. I note you did not bother to answer several of my questions, such as: Is death an appropriate penalty for kidnapping? On what authority do you decide that death is an appropriate penalty? On what authority do you decide that you are entitled to enforce it?

It amazes me that people are trying to define the rescuers as evil and the orcs who kidnapped, enslaved and tortured people as good.

You are the one espousing an absolute moral code. You have maintained that your actions were absolutely good, and that they could not possibly have been evil in any way. This is a foolish statement for you to make. There have been several points made that have indicated that your actions could very well have been evil. Given that your stance is that there is no way what you did was evil, it doesn't have to be likely that they were evil to compeltely falsify your argument, only possible.

You feel you were on rock solid moral ground with respect to your actions. That is silly. You weren't. You were on probable moral ground, but that is not what you have claimed.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Kidnapping is a capital crime....I think. Even if it wasn't I'd make it one. Put those pigs to the sword!

 

[RobNJ]

Just because I questioned killing the entire population of an area (responding to an ugly Civil War argument), that does not mean I'm some "Stars'n'Bars" waving yahoo. Personally, I find that flag a racist symbol (but that's really off-topic) and don't like being associated with it.

I didn't mean to suggest that that's how you felt, blah. Can I call you blah? Rather, I just saw your post as an opportunity to brag about my really cool bumper sticker .

 

[RobNJ]

This statement would seem to infer that the issue of slavery was the issue that the war was actually begun over. That would be incorrect, as far more factors than that were involved.

It wouldn't be incorrect, it would just be a too-limited answer.

 

[Storm Raven]

Kidnapping is a capital crime....I think. Even if it wasn't I'd make it one. Put those pigs to the sword!

And who put you in a position to decide this? Is overfrying eggs to be a capital crime on your say-so as well?

At one point in time, bigamy was a capital crime in Virginia. Does that mean that adventurers should burst into bedrooms and make sure that no one has more than one wife?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

And who put you in a position to decide this? Is overfrying eggs to be a capital crime on your say-so as well?

Should I really respond to this stupidity?

 

[blahbleh]

No problem Rob. Mea culpa accepted. And it is a cool bumper sticker. I was just peeved when I assumed I was the target. And "blah" is fine.

blahbleh