| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John Layfield
Last Literature D-Line
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Post Count: 6231
Location: Saint Dragon
509933 Potch
9300 Soldiers
3525 Nation Points
|
 Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 10:02 am Post subject: |
  |
|
But even so, it's not as if just because the first attempt failed that the faction would say "Ok, let's not kill them anymore". You'd only delay it. If you were supporting the Godwin faction, the end result would be genocide whether you wanted it or not.
_________________
One day, I shall come back. Yes, we shall all come back. Until then, there must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rainrir
Landsknecht
Joined: 06 May 2006
Post Count: 251
Location: Negative Reality
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well...it can be argued that the Beavers don't look human..and hence NOT HUMAN or even Sentient in Godwin's eyes...I guess that is how they justify it. But then it is really a slippery justification......and senseless really.
Being a Godwin supporter does not neccessarily mean you have to GO ALONG WITH the Genocide. But Godwins could twist the arguement till you accept the absurb conclusion they draw..just like how American politics is sometimes so divisive that people just vote along party lines....and do not think about the implications of their vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Masa
Fightin' Nac Mac Feegle
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Post Count: 2157
Location: Dana
418570 Potch
0 Soldiers
10000 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That works for beavers. What about dwarves?
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rune hunter
Joined: 02 May 2006
Post Count: 461
Location: Tenzan Pass
236548 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It seems abit interesting to note most of the policies Lym implemented after the war was similar to what Barrows would implement had he come into power. Namely make peace with Armes and create a trade system with them thus making it less likely they will attack them. The only difference i saw with what Lym implemented that Barrows would not was the dismanteling of the senate.
| Prince Falenas wrote: |
That has no bearing. This is about "were they evil (or 'worse for Falena than the Barows')", not "did they believe they were. Genocide is evil no matter how you look at it - do you think Hitler wasn't evil because he believed that he was 'right' to kill the Jews and Blacks and anyone who didn't fit his definition of 'perfect'?
EDIT: (Inspired to say this by looking at my sig) Besides that, he blatantly used the quote in my sig, the Falenan national motto (or whatever it is), all the while going against it. "Let out mercy as deep as the Feitas, and our authority as powerful as the Sun, be revealed to the entire world". Mercy. Did he show the Dwarves any mercy, or the Beavers, for that matter? Not until we the player, in the shoes of the Prince, stepped in to stop him. |
Actual I think finding out about whether or not they believe they were "right" will influence us a little whether we believe they are "evil". The term "evil" is subjective. Going to war is also "evil" but the prince still does it. If i recall correctly Isabela said "by using your sword you bring evil into this world. You can only hope to create less evil that the evil you destroy" or something like that.
Btw Prince Falenas I think godwin was following that motto. He was just more focused on revealing the authority of falena rather than its mercy. And godwin did allow raftfleet to surrender peacefully that at least shows godwin has mercy for humans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aesa
Those Who Slumber
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Post Count: 3238
Location: Barko Saywa
427118 Potch
250 Soldiers
5 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Having thought things out a bit further, this will be my final main opinion post in this topic:
I am not justifying Godwin's actions against non-humans. Look what he was willing to do to the nation's mosts powerful Cavalry.
We don't know however for that matter, Salum's feelings on non-humans. Oh sure he may be all buddy buddy to gain power, but what about when he does gain power. He may not be openly opposed, but still.
Marscal at least, was a better than Salum ever was...
_________________
The setting sun means the rise of a new day...
...excepting for Ragnarok, of course
~Tinto~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rainrir
Landsknecht
Joined: 06 May 2006
Post Count: 251
Location: Negative Reality
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Marscal at least, was a better than Salum ever was... |
Heh The trend ocillates between approval of Marscarl Godwin and Salun Barrow's charcater and approval of their policies...
Maybe we should seperate our opinion between Marscarl and Salun's personalities and our opinion of each houses' policies.
To RuneHunter
I find your arguement interesting...and want to add more to it..haha.
| Quote: |
It seems abit interesting to note most of the policies Lym implemented after the war was similar to what Barrows would implement had he come into power. Namely make peace with Armes and create a trade system with them thus making it less likely they will attack them. The only difference i saw with what Lym implemented that Barrows would not was the dismanteling of the senate. |
Because Barrow's policy of trading and making peace actually make more sense for the nation at that time? Disregarding Salun's character, it is actually a very sensible position the House of Barrows hold compared to Godwin's expanionist policies especially as a guide to FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
Just because Lym adopts this policy, of trading and cooperating with Armes, doesn't mean she likes the Barrow's fraction more or fully agree with Barrow's philosophy..and it certainy doesn't mean that the Barrows policy is decidedly superior than Godwin's. Godwin's policy about having a powerful conventional military that can project power..and the "ability" to use the Sun Rune as a weapon is both sensible...when practiced in moderation. It can be argued that one of the purpose of placing the Dawn, Twilight and Sun runes together in the sealed room in Sol-Falaena (at the end of the game) is for future Queens of Falaenia to have easy access to the Sun Rune (without going insane) in the case of an emergency (Godwin policy).
Furthermore, Falaena has just endured a year-long civil war..I do not think that it is wise at all for Lym to pursue any expansonist (if she is expansionist at all) policy when Falaena is on its way to rebuilding.
| Quote: |
Actual I think finding out about whether or not they believe they were "right" will influence us a little whether we believe they are "evil". The term "evil" is subjective. Going to war is also "evil" but the prince still does it. If i recall correctly Isabela said "by using your sword you bring evil into this world. You can only hope to create less evil that the evil you destroy" or something like that.
|
Genocide is evil...I do not see any justification of WHY genocide isn't...Extermination of an entire race, in my opinion, is self defeating anyway you see it...be it morally or practically. Evil in the moral sense...wasteful in the utilitarian sense. It will be a better idea to find some way to benefit via cooperation with the said race..so everyone wins.
"Evil is subjective" is the most overused term I hear being used nowadays. Yes, in some cases, acts of evil are subjective...but that does not necessarily mean that ALL evil acts are subjective.
In my opinion, one defination of the term "Evil is Subjective" means there are many many degrees of "evil"...stealing and murder and rape are all evils...but are you willing to consider Stealing=Murder=Rape? This is the case where "evil is subjective"
The other defination of "Evil is subjective" means that some "evil" acts are done to actually do GOOD. Like killing someone who is about to kill an innocent person(serial killer etc.), hurting someone that is trying to rape a girl, going to war to stop a genocide...
In these cases, only doing an act of "evil" can actually result in good INTENTIONALLY, with EVIDENT knowledge that inaction can lead to greater evil, can the "evil" of such an act be justified as "evil is subjective". Only in such extraordinary cases, can such an idea can be brought out in defense of an "evil" act (like "hurting" "killing or "war")
But..but....BUT! Genocide is never subjective EVER..because the premise of any kind of genocide is always shaky at its foundation. Racial superiority, racial purity, the "other side is evil" arguements, to hasten the arrival of the "rapture" (HEH...) are ALWAYS...ALWAYS shaky and, most of the time, untrue.
Regarding the Falaenian Motto
I do not think that interpetation of the Falaenian motto is correct if we are to say that Godwin PRACTISES one of the ideals on that motto. My opinion is that the Motto is to be understood AS A WHOLE. That Falaenia is to be power and merciful at the same time...that is why I will argue that neither Godwin nor Barrows fully fulfilled the Ideals of Falaena...
There is a reason why authority and mercy are placed together in the Falaenian motto...you know... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rune hunter
Joined: 02 May 2006
Post Count: 461
Location: Tenzan Pass
236548 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actual when you first meet barrows the prince could choose an option i think it was " i can't fully disagree with him" or something like that. And Lym says something along the line "your right but I just can't trust salum" im paraphrasing of course. Im sure if someone more trust worth proposed that policy we would probable thing he's policy should be implemented without any hesitation.
I think if lym had to choose she would choose barrows policy over godwins. From a pratical stand point barrows policy would be cheap and would place the country in a better position and improve the lives of people. If they follow Godwin policy there "men would be sent to some foreign land to fight for cause they dont believe,they levy the taxes and increase the army." this is what one of the npc said.
To the church homosexuality is evil. Until quite recently the church has sofened its stand. Today we believe slavery is evil but in past it was perfectly alright. In ancient sparta infantaside was not evil but today you would be imprisoned for it. My point it evil is subjective. Different people consider different things evil.
Ever hear the saying two wrongs dont make a right? Even if your intentions are good if your methods are evil it is likely that bad things will happen. Let me give the Iraq war as an example(no flames!!!) Even if america's intentions were good they pursuded it in the wrong way. The end result is nothing less than horrible.
Genocide is subjective at least to the perpatretor of any genocide. If Hitler had won the war(thankfully he did not) most germans would probable think what they did was right and lead to the strengthening of germany. I know to us it seems evil but those who suported hitler did not see it as such. Even jews committed genocide against the Amalekites in the bible
Genocide is very similar to war. War is basically killing all who oppose you or all who have a different belief that you until they surrender. While Genocide is killing people who are different from you. Not which is worse, Genocide or war?
Im sure godwin was planning on showing the beavers and dwarves mercy by killing them swiftly(sarcasm) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rainrir
Landsknecht
Joined: 06 May 2006
Post Count: 251
Location: Negative Reality
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Rune Hunter says:
To the church homosexuality is evil. Until quite recently the church has sofened its stand. Today we believe slavery is evil but in past it was perfectly alright. In ancient sparta infantaside was not evil but today you would be imprisoned for it. My point it evil is subjective. Different people consider different things evil. |
Heh...another one of those overused phrases.....
There has to be a limit to how evil is "subjective" because if all evil acts are subjective, we have NOTHING to stop us from sliding into immorality. While I am not a moral absolutist myself, I do not believe that there is no limits to the subjectivity of evil.
Consider this: A good friend or a family member was raped by someone. When he was caught, his only rationel is this: his culture and his people's way of doing things is as so...hence it is not immoral for him to act this way. Come on, if evil is all that subjective, will you accept his arguement?
Yes you are right that evil things like slavery, infanticide, homophobia are morally accepted in the past..but did you every consider WHY these practices are abandoned? Because some people of THAT time, on deeper thought, realised that such practices do not make sense and contradict OTHER values which they hold. Love thy enemy, the church teaches..yet it also view homosexuals as "the enemy" and called for their ruthless extremination. Americans with their Declaration of Human Rights...but slaves, who are also human, are not freed.
It is the MORAL courage that some people of that time had which eventually rose and challenged such beliefs. Different people consider different things evil? I would say that some people of that time have the same belief (at least on the issue of a particular evil) as we have how...this is what that prompted them to act against established "moral" authorities. They were raised in an environment that teaches them that the "evil" that is happening around them is "acceptable" and "moral" but what caused them to act? Morals! THAT'S WHAT.
There are evils that cannot be subjective.
***Personal Opinion***
People have the capacity to do what is right even when they are taught otherwise by society. I believe in a certain "baseline" morality that is common to all people...and this "base" morality is what inspires people to oppose "evil"...Even in environments that encourage people to comply.
***End of Personal Opinion***
| Quote: |
| Ever hear the saying two wrongs dont make a right? Even if your intentions are good if your methods are evil it is likely that bad things will happen. Let me give the Iraq war as an example(no flames!!!) Even if america's intentions were good they pursuded it in the wrong way. The end result is nothing less than horrible |
No..it cannot be argued that since moral intervention (harming/killing/war) can could potentially result in a horrible aftermath, it is WRONG. Because of the simple reason that inaction will also result in horrible results. the Iraq War is not a good example of moral intervenation..despite what some people say. The cause is dubious and intent suspicious, that is why we cannot equate it to actions like stopping a rapist/killer or going to war to stop a Genocide. Unless, of course, you are going to argue that the latter is also not justified. IMO, American intervenation is Kosovo is a better example...
And it has nothing to do with two wrongs not making a right.
| Quote: |
| Genocide is subjective at least to the perpatretor of any genocide. If Hitler had won the war(thankfully he did not) most germans would probable think what they did was right and lead to the strengthening of germany. I know to us it seems evil but those who suported hitler did not see it as such. Even jews committed genocide against the Amalekites in the bible |
Nope. What do you mean its subjective to the perpatrator, the German people themselves said their forebears commited horrible sins and they will never forget the sins commited. It has nothing to do with winning the war, because some Germans even think that the genocide policy is immoral DURING the war when they were under the rule of Hitler(but are swiftly dealth with)
Even some of the Nazi members were privately reluctant to go along with the policy and it is known that the extreme hardcore anti-semites in the Nazi Party are actually the minority (a big minority) but held all/most of the important positions. In fact it has been argued that the Holocaust is a down up effort to please the top brass of Nazi Germany. Not to mention that the Nazi Party is essentially a one man show...when it comes to policies and idealogy...
Most of the German people themselves are subjected to an environment where they thought everyone else believes that extermination of the Jews is right (what some pyshoclogist know as the Horde effect), lived in terror as voices of dissent are harshly dealt with by Hitler and lived in a world which Hitler bombarded them with endless propagenda and misinfomation about the Jews.
Eduard Schulte, Wilm Hosenfeld, Karl Plagge, Albert Göring are all Germans that saw what their nation are doing are morally wrong and helped in saving the Jews. I am sure many other German people knew what they did was morally wrong..except they choose not to do anything...
and comply with Hitler's madness...
If anything, the Holocaust is a tragic case of how the German people have propagenda, peer pressure and fear overwhelmed their morals and caused them to act immorally. While some people trace the event to the fierce "anti-semite" sentiment of the Christian religion, lets not forget that Germany doesn't exist in a cultural vacuum. Other nations such as France and Britain also found the Holocaust an immoral act. Hence we cannot say it is subjective evil beacuse people deep down know they are commiting evil.
| Quote: |
| Genocide is very similar to war. War is basically killing all who oppose you or all who have a different belief that you until they surrender. While Genocide is killing people who are different from you. Not which is worse, Genocide or war? |
This is completely preposterous. Go read the dictionary and THEN tell me they are the same. It is like arguing Eugenics and Biology is the same thing, as they all study life. Or Holocaust Denial is the same as Revisionist, as both challenge assumptions and historical fact. To the layman they look the same, but they are actually different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rune hunter
Joined: 02 May 2006
Post Count: 461
Location: Tenzan Pass
236548 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Consider this: A good friend or a family member was raped by someone. When he was caught, his only rationel is this: his culture and his people's way of doing things is as so...hence it is not immoral for him to act this way. Come on, if evil is all that subjective, will you accept his arguement?
|
Of course I wont accept his argument and i'd love to see him rot in jail. But im sure he will be thinking "why did they imprison me. I'm the one whose right."(see the subjectivity of the term "evil")
Abotion,euthenasia etc etc just becouse i find these things evil does not make them evil to others.
Slavery,infatecide etc became politically incorrect. And becouse there is now a punishment for doing any of these things That why people no longer preform them. Remove the probabilty of punishment and im sure people will do these again(and truth be told even with a coresponding punishment people still do these things.)
Bah. "Morals" is what made them act you say? The truth of the matter is most of the time they only acted becouse of there own selfish interest. Wether it be political,economic or social they only changed things becouse they knew it would benifit them.(Its nice to say "look were fighting for freedom join us,support us" dont you think?)
Fact remains there were still people who believed what they did was right. Of course the people of Germany says what they did was wrong after all they were defeated in the war. If the german people had won the war they may be saying that the killing of the Jew was "right".
Let me give another example. Americans have conducted one of the longest and largest genocide in history(more specifically it was comitted by there European ansestors) against the american indians. For centuries most people though what they did was right. They stole land,killed people(intentionally and unintentionally) made contracts with the indians which were less than honest. Today im sure most americans are discusted by something like that but in the past it was alright to kill "savages". Let me ask you has america done enough for them? Probable not becouse if they really wanted to make it up they would have returned everything they stole back to them. But they wont do that now becouse those lands now "rightfully" belong to them.
| Quote: |
This is completely preposterous. Go read the dictionary and THEN tell me they are the same. It is like arguing Eugenics and Biology is the same thing, as they all study life. Or Holocaust Denial is the same as Revisionist, as both challenge assumptions and historical fact. To the layman they look the same, but they are actually different.
|
Mere semantics. In the end war and genocide leads to death of people. Whatever reason you may have to go to war or to preform genocide im sure from your "moral" stand point it is wrong |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rainrir
Landsknecht
Joined: 06 May 2006
Post Count: 251
Location: Negative Reality
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Of course I wont accept his argument and i'd love to see him rot in jail. But im sure he will be thinking "why did they imprison me. I'm the one whose right."(see the subjectivity of the term "evil")
|
Yes but that doesn't mean that what that person did was WRONG to you and everyone else but him. If you are not ready to accept that his "moral" is right(therefore he can be pardoned)..then "evil is subjective" is a completely useless concept that cannot be applied to anything.
"Evil is completely subjective" is a philosophically untenable position and is not even useful in helping us determine right and wrong or at least how we should act. Hence, this statement is completely USELESS in practical use.
| Quote: |
Bah. "Morals" is what made them act you say? The truth of the matter is most of the time they only acted becouse of there own selfish interest. Wether it be political,economic or social they only changed things becouse they knew it would benifit them.(Its nice to say "look were fighting for freedom join us,support us" dont you think?)
Fact remains there were still people who believed what they did was right. Of course the people of Germany says what they did was wrong after all they were defeated in the war. If the german people had won the war they may be saying that the killing of the Jew was "right".
|
Enough...I gave examples of German people who chose to do the right thing even when Germany was in her truimphant phase(the years where she kept owning her neighbours)and at considerable risk to their lives and well-being. There are also people who knew what they are doing is WRONG...the majority in fact.
YET you kept saying the German people would have said the Holocaust was right if Hitler won the war. Perhaps they would, but can they (do they?) truely believe what they did was right? Especially if the truths of the Holocause FULLY revealed to the German People eventually? Will anyone, save hardcore anti-semites and holocaust denialist, dare say that what they did was right even if they won the "war" in the end?
I personally found that insulting to the people, who took real risks without any tangible rewards to save Jews they never know, that you keep insisting that what they do have some ulterior motive or their deeds was "actions to make them look good after Germany lost"
Granted there might have individuals who tried to exploit the situation by promoting a "correct" cause to garner support for themselves, but look at it this way..there are also many who did the RIGHT thing out of their moral beliefs and there are also some who see that they can both get to do the right thing (which they believe in) and further their causes.
Truth is many Germans knew what they are doing is actually wrong, but few choose to follow their consience back in the Holocaust. It was terror, apathy, peer pressure and misinfomation that made most Germans did what they did then, not ignorance of the immorality of their act and NOT because they believe completely in Hitler's warped ideals.
Yes, you are right there are a few people who still think what Nazi Germany did was right deep down, but that is most confined to people who refuse to look/accept at THE FACT that the Holocaust is IMMORAL, people too blinded by their ideological acceptance of Fascism/Nazi ideology or has, in some cases, are too deeply haunted by their guilt to be able to face up to the truth of what they did was wrong...
| Quote: |
Let me give another example. Americans have conducted one of the longest and largest genocide in history(more specifically it was comitted by there European ansestors) against the american indians. For centuries most people though what they did was right. They stole land,killed people(intentionally and unintentionally) made contracts with the indians which were less than honest. Today im sure most americans are discusted by something like that but in the past it was alright to kill "savages". Let me ask you has america done enough for them? Probable not becouse if they really wanted to make it up they would have returned everything they stole back to them. But they wont do that now becouse those lands now "rightfully" belong to them.
|
That is an unfortunate historical occurance, and the government of the United States has been trying somewhat to make up for what they did in the past. If some of the people back THEN did not find what they where doing is morally WRONG, the laws to help or protect the native americans will NEVER have come into fruitation in the first place! If some of the people, whose moral consience told them mistreating the Native Americans were wrong, never acted to seek justice for the Native Americans...right up to today we would see the Americans mistreating the Indians. While the problem is not fully solved, nevertheless there are well-meaning people continue to fight for Native American rights...because they believe doing so is the RIGHT thing to do.
However, fully giving back the ALL land is outrageous and definately not a plausible choice. Such a choice is not even grounded in reality...where will the various immigrants and people that came to America go? You seem to like choices that is not even a realistic option to the people making them. Even if all the land was returned to the Indians..will they ever be able to lgo back to their old lives? (especially since the American Bison population has gone extinct, the technological advances the Indians adopted from the Europeans and the economic links between the two peoples.) This is a very complicated issue, and simple solutions like this is doomed to fail.
Technically, the Americans "won", yet that does not blind all of them to the sins they did in the past to the Native Americans.
I believe that if Hitler won, and eventually the German people learnt the FULL truth and see the FULL truth of what happend. not all will be blind to the sins they commited.
| Quote: |
Abotion,euthenasia etc etc just becouse i find these things evil does not make them evil to others.
Slavery,infatecide etc became politically incorrect. And becouse there is now a punishment for doing any of these things That why people no longer preform them. Remove the probabilty of punishment and im sure people will do these again(and truth be told even with a coresponding punishment people still do these things.)
|
You really are a half-a-cup-empty kind of guy/gal aren't you? If that is what you believe, fine. "Politically correct" is never a term I believed in... people treat it like it some kind of golden mean or word of god. It also gets in the way of real discussion.....However, the reason why some of these issues become defined as "politically incorrect" is because people realise that they are INCORRECT morally. There is a reason why these ideas become "politically incorrect" in the first place...
| Quote: |
Mere semantics. In the end war and genocide leads to death of people. Whatever reason you may have to go to war or to preform genocide im sure from your "moral" stand point it is wrong
|
I am not getting to you, am I. If that is what you feel then fine, I guess the dictionary is useless for defining things ....I am not going to argue or debate anymore. I will leave you with your conclusion. Reading into what you will, but this is NOT a sign of defeat...more of exhasution.
Ok enough of that, the discussion becomed sidetracked because of me and I am ending it here. We will discussion no more about this, as we differ in even basic undestanding and definations of the issues we are talking about.
My final position is that both Godwin and Barrows fractions policies(limitedly) make sense to Falaena...It will not be wise to completely disregard the arguements of both...and it is folly to carry one's arguement too far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rune hunter
Joined: 02 May 2006
Post Count: 461
Location: Tenzan Pass
236548 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't say "evil is subjective" is suppose to really help us decided to pick a moral position. It simply suppose to mean that in the eyes of different people they consider different things "evil". Nothing more nothing less. What is evil to you might be just and right for someone else.
If playing suikoden has taught me anything its that there is no real "good" or "evil" its just different hues of gray. And its up to you to choose which gray you want to use and what gray you will fight for.
| Quote: |
Enough...I gave examples of German people who chose to do the right thing even when Germany was in her triumphant phase(the years where she kept owning her neighbours)and at considerable risk to their lives and well-being. There are also people who knew what they are doing is WRONG...the majority in fact.
YET you kept saying the German people would have said the Holocaust was right if Hitler won the war. Perhaps they would, but can they (do they?) truely believe what they did was right? Especially if the truths of the Holocaust FULLY revealed to the German People eventually? Will anyone, save hardcore anti-Semites and holocaust denialist, dare say that what they did was right even if they won the "war" in the end?
|
If they had won the war im sure people would be saying " the holocaust was neccesary" maybe even the less died hard and less anti-Semitics might agree. Just as people now say the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was "necessary to win the war".
To the victor goes the spoils and its the victor who will write what history has to say.
Similarly in suikoden Leon devised a strategy that led to the Kalekka incident. It was morally questionable but it was a great way to make people pro-war. Same with Luca blight. It was a good way to rally support. And no matter how much the thought of the holacust repulses me i can't help but think it was a great strategic move. It help rally people to support Hitler and was a great way to destroy dissidents. It killed all of Hitler’s political opponents.
It possible that the people who though that mistreating the native Americans where a minority and the majority view was that they didn't really care about the natives. And the only reason people changed there stance was because of this minority.(If your wondering why im saying this its because im drawing a parallel to how the holocaust were only masterminded by a minority.)
In any case Americans have not done much to help them. This is fact and no matter what they do they will never make it up to them. And I may be so bold to as the majority of america does not care that there ansestors stole the land the live in. All they care about is that they now live a comfortable life
| Quote: |
You really are a half-a-cup-empty kind of guy/gal aren't you? If that is what you believe, fine. "Politically correct" is never a term I believed in... people treat it like it some kind of golden mean or word of god. It also gets in the way of real discussion.....However, the reason why some of these issues become defined as "politically incorrect" is because people realise that they are INCORRECT morally. There is a reason why these ideas become "politically incorrect" in the first place...
|
A half-a-cup-empty kind of guy you say(and yes I am a guy) Not really.I just feel like taking a pragmatic stance. My main point was simply to say that even though there are people who say what your doing is wrong does not make it wrong.(nor does it make it right) Let me ask you is abortion "evil"? to me personally its evil but to some other people they believe its not evil and should be legalized.(see how subjective the term evil is?)
I agree I wont change your belief nor was it my intention.
Anyways my final position is Godwin is a madman and Barrows is a snake but if I had to choose I would choose barrow anyday. Godwin was "evil" in my opinion. Even considering his policies would have been detremental to Falena.(it was not like any of the countries near Falena was about to threaten them). It would also lead to forced conscriptions,high taxes and great damage to the land of Falena. Barrows policy was superior in my opinion. It would have lead to job creation, increased internal stability, and greater feelings of trust with Armes.
Barrows at least knew the horrors of war. Armes did capture most of his lands. Unlike Godwin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eden
Private Godwin Army
Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Post Count: 6221
Location: Doraat
560494 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I really don't want to interfere your quarrel, but I wondered what soemthing you wrote means...
Rune Hunter wrote
| Quote: |
| It help rally people to support Hitler and was a great way to destroy dissidents. It killed all of Hitler's political opponents. |
The Holocoust isn't meant to include dissidents, but jews, but that isn't important for my question.
| Quote: |
| [The Holocaust] was a great strategic move. |
The quote above explains why you think it was a great strategic move, but in fact it was a stupic thing to do (in a strategic sense), because it made people fear him. And may fear be a good weapon at first, in the end it can only lead in one direction, because people who belong to one of the many groups Hitler wanted to annihilate would fight till the very end, because otherwise they will die nevertheless. Other nations are rather inclined to fight if another nation does such things and even citizens of the commiting nation who understand fully what happens are disguisted (this wasn't true in every case though).
The way Hitler fought lead either to his victory or his end, because there couldn't be a give-up for him. Therefore I think he was completely insane he didn't care for sure.
_________________
The Fool |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rune hunter
Joined: 02 May 2006
Post Count: 461
Location: Tenzan Pass
236548 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well first off it did include dissidents(at least that's what some sources say) anyway...
You may be absolutely right. Those strategies(the holocoust and unicorn brigade massacre) were bad long term strategies. But the reason I believed it was a great strategy was becouse it served both of Hitler and Luca purposes. If hitler had a problem blame it on the jews. Same with Luca he wanted a scap goat for his plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vincent Vingerhut
Knights of Rass Will
Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Post Count: 180
Location: Valignano
156581 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Barows wasnt just a snake. What he did against the population of Lordlake was equally evil as the planned genocide of Godwins against the beavers an dwarves. The only difference is the fact that this evil behaviour of Barows is fuelled by greed, while that of Godwin is fuelled by hate. As far as Luca, he is evil beyond these 2 fractions, just purely wicked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Masa
Fightin' Nac Mac Feegle
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Post Count: 2157
Location: Dana
418570 Potch
0 Soldiers
10000 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, in the Barows defense of Lordlake, their only plan was to use the rioting to steal the Dawn Rune, I imagine Salum had no particular plan about getting Lordlake scorched (after all, he was more on the side of NOT using the Sun Rune).
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
