Valentine told Ender about Locke and Demosthenes at the Lake in Ender's Game, so this stupid mawkish scene where he doesn't know who Demosthenes is and then meets Valentine makes no sense whatsoever. Are all Ender books being ghost-written now?
["Who would expect less?" she said. "You're a Wiggin."
"Whatever that means," he said.
"It means that you are going to make a difference in the world." And she told him what she and Peter were doing.]
[ May 31, 2009, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: kamp101 ]
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
You seem perturbed. Did this impair your enjoyment of the novel?
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
Yes. The whole thing is one giant inconsistency so far -- maybe it will improve? Not to mention the awful scene at the beginning which similarly violated continuity (with Ender in EG being able to watch the court martial proceedings by asserting his rank) but was an extremely poorly disguised meta-rebuttal to John Kessel, Elaine Radford, etc. and others who have leveled accusations against the character of Ender as being a monster.
I used to disagree with these people's position vehemently - I even had a two week long e-mail exchange with Kessel about it. Now reading Card's own defense of Ender's actions in Ender's own words, the whole thing seems ridiculous. In EG it came off as morally ok because Ender didn't know he killed the two other kids he killed, and with Bonzo, it was definitely the case that Ender's killing him was the side effect of a self-defense situation and playing on the old nose into brain fallacy ( http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=511 ).
Now that Ender is fully embracing the fact that he should have killed them, it seems monstrous. It's not even remotely legally defensible, yet alone morally defensible to kill someone in "self defense" once they've been overpowered, as was the case with Stilson. It can slide by when it's the a desperate act, however calculated, in the first book, but Ender's reflection on it is extremely poor and makes him seem monstrous in Exile.
I hope there's some kind of minor payoff in this book, somewhere, though at this point I doubt it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Hmm, I could be wrong but I don't think Card is trying to be overly apologetic for Ender's monstrosity. He tries to show that it was the result of manipulation by Graff and others, but, in my opinion, doesn't deny that it's abnormal and would ordinarily be very alarming for a young boy to kill kids in such fights.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by kamp101: Now that Ender is fully embracing the fact that he should have killed them,
Can anybody confirm that this happens/ explain it? I really don't remember it, but it has been awhile since I read Exile.
I don't remember anything in Exile pretaining to Ender's crimes that was wildly different from anything said in EG or Speaker.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
{pg.32-33}
"But here's the thing, Mazer Rackham: I knew what I was doing. It's ridiculous for Hyrum Graff to be on trial for this. He had no idea of the way I thought, when it came to Stilson. He couldn't have known what I'd do. Only I knew. And I mean to hurt him- I mean to hurt him bad. Not Graff's fault. The fault was Stilson's. If he had left me alone - and I gave him every chance to walk away. I begged him to leave me alone. If he'd done that, he'd be alive. He chose. Just because he thought I was weaker than him, just because he thought I couldn't protect myself, doesn't mean it stopped being his fault."
This is the biggest chunk of moral garbage I've read coming out of any character's mouth, not to mention a character who as far as the author is concerned basically doesn't make mistakes. It's somehow Stilson's own fault that he got kicked in the face to death by another six year old because he picked a fight with him in a typical schoolyard bully type of scene?
Also, apparently the pay-off for continuing to read is finding out that monogamy is somehow scientifically the most stable social institution and that single acts of undiscovered adultery would dismantle the entire social structure and result in all colonists killing one another.
Not to mention that the same character could have simply said "No I will not let you breed me for the sake of eugenics" or rattled off any myriad number of reasons and I would have been fine for it. Instead, we're supposed to accept this right-wing nonsense as scientifically proven fact in Card's universe. Nevermind that serial monogomy is the norm for modern society and also happens to be the form of marriage practiced by the Semai, easily the most peaceful and stable society known.
Part of me wants to finish the book just to see how bad it gets from here. The other part of me wants to set it on fire.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Sounds like the book is really upsetting you. That's too bad, I quite enjoyed it. Maybe you should just quit before it makes you violent.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I say stop reading it if you want to keep your hair. The book drives me up a tree. I can see why you're annoyed with that part. Now, if it was corrected to say, (I forgot who Ender killed in Battle School)whoever that dude was, Bonzo? I can sort of see it because this was a huge teenager picking on a small boy and there was no reason to do that. I'm not saying he deserved it, it was pretty harsh. But, Stilson was only 6. Neither one should have been bullying, but yes, kicking them that hard was harsh.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Yes, it was Bonzo.
Thanks for the quote. I'll have to reread it, though.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
The fault was Stilson's. Making that statement of fact with regards to who the initial causal agent was does not mean that Ender is either remorseful or regretful (though, in this case, it seems more plausible that he would be remorseful and NOT regretful).
It's like poking a bear repeatedly. You poke the bear again and again, and when it does something back you claim "it wasn't my fault!" That's just a stupid claim.
This does not mean that Ender is abdicating moral responsibility. That is a distinct claim.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
It's a distinctly wrong claim. Ender is the only responsible party in this instance. I'm sorry, but how many people here were ever involved in bully situations? How many people on the planet earth? How many resorted to killing the bully to solve them?
It is not Stilson's fault that he got killed. It would be Stilson's fault if he got punched in the face and given a black eye, choked unconscious, reported to the teacher, etc. These are all acceptable responses to the situation. They are normal, human responses. They make one say, "Well he had it coming."
Killing Stilson was morally wrong, AND strategically wrong. As Ender proves later in the book himself, the best way to deal with a bully is to humiliate them (he does this with Bernard and the whole "watch your butt" thing). There he acts like a reasonable human being and solves the problem in a moral and strategically sound way.
The fact that Ender can't look back and see he made the wrong decision means his character is currently being written in a really stupid way. Oh wait, Ender can't make mistakes, because that would break his character, and we can't have him actually develop now, can we?
If you actually think Stilson is at fault for getting killed for acting like a normal 6 year old bully, you are a morally depraved individual, and I hope Mr. Card's writing hasn't contributed to putting you in this state. You should look up the law regarding self defense, excessive force, what measures are merited based on the threat, etc. and think of what it means in moral terms to act to kill someone after having already overpowered them.
The Bonzo thing is a grey area -- it only works through suspension of disbelief. You have to believe that one kid can kill and older stronger kid with one well placed headbutt. I think the odds of that happening are about 0.0002% personally, and as the fight is written, Ender kills Bonzo while taking acceptable self-defense actions.
To summarize the fault / causation one more time --as people always seem to have trouble with this (google Aristotle and his different causes as a starting point-- Stilson started a situation in which Ender killed him, but he did not start a situation in which a predictable or reasonable or morally defensible response from Ender involved Stilson getting killed. Ender made the decision and performed the actions that resulted in Stilson dying. This is not a bear poking situation, but one in which there are moral and legal responsibilities that Ender abandoned and chose not to abide by, his deviations from them in this case far, far, far, far, far outweighing the deviations from such responsibilities inherent in the actions taken by Stilson.
He is still clinging to the fact that he made the right decision, strategically, morally, whatever. When he considers all things and conflates all motivations he decides it was the right action. We are somehow supposed to overlook this because he feels really bad about having to have made the right decision?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think there's a deliberate juxtaposition set up between Ender's "I had to kill those kids" rationalizations at the start of the book and his "please, Achilles, beat me within an inch of my life to get it out of your system" behavior at the end. It's pathological -- not remotely healthy -- but both approaches are presented as necessary.
I would have liked to see the Hive Queen berate Ender for so cavalierly risking his life at the end of the book, though, after she has entrusted the survival of her species to him.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think there's a deliberate juxtaposition set up between Ender's "I had to kill those kids" rationalizations at the start of the book and his "please, Achilles, beat me within an inch of my life to get it out of your system" behavior at the end. It's pathological -- not remotely healthy -- but both approaches are presented as necessary.
I would have liked to see the Hive Queen berate Ender for so cavalierly risking his life at the end of the book, though, after she has entrusted the survival of her species to him.
Not a bad point Tom. I didn't think about that when he was having his clock cleaned.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
From what I can recall from Speaker for the Dead and the next two books, the queen tries to be nice to Ender because she (with some resentment and regret) considers him her only chance and fears making him angry.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:
Killing Stilson was morally wrong, AND strategically wrong. As Ender proves later in the book himself, the best way to deal with a bully is to humiliate them (he does this with Bernard and the whole "watch your butt" thing). There he acts like a reasonable human being and solves the problem in a moral and strategically sound way.
[/QB]
It's a different situation in Battleschool though. How does he humiliate stilson? He was able to humiliate Bernard because everyones eyes were glued to computer, and in Battle School, Bernard knew he would face consquence if he retaliated by putting his had in the toilet or something.
I havent read Exile, but after reading that I still dont doubt that Ender wishes that what he'd done had only injures Stilson and wasnt fatal. I dont think Ender purposefully killed Stiloson. He just meant to hurt him bad; If someone kicked me in the face as hard as they can, I would be surpised if I didnt wake up with some nice morphine. I dont think Andew expected Stilson to die.
And it's even more unlikely with a punch--that's a criticism of the comic.
[ June 02, 2009, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Hi kamp101. Read the afterword where OSC admits he threw out most of what happened in EG to write the sequel.
I think the afterword should have been a forward, as with ample warning maybe I would not have been too bothered with the cross-book inconsistencies to continue. In fact, I couldn't finish EinE because the departure annoyed me far too much.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"Most"? I think the only significant departures were from the final chapter or two.
Posted by Craig Childs (Member # 5382) on :
quote:Originally posted by kamp101: If you actually think Stilson is at fault for getting killed for acting like a normal 6 year old bully, you are a morally depraved individual,
Count me in this group.
When you choose to start an unprovoked fight against an innocent party, then you pays your money and you takes your chances. I really don't have a problem with the fact that Ender used lethal force when defending himself.
Suppose I get ambushed in a parking lot tonight by a teenager bent on stealing my wallet or my car. Suppose I choose to fight back, and suppose I kill my attacker during that fight. Should a jury should find me guilty of murder, or acquit me on the grounds of self-defense?
You could make a case of murder--after all, I took a life just to save my wallet or my car.
But I think acquittal is the route to go. I was attacked. I acted in self-defense. I made sure the attacker could never hurt me again. End of story.
That's the chance any bully/criminal takes when they choose to engage in violent behavior.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I really don't have a problem with the fact that Ender used lethal force when defending himself.
Against a grade-schooler?
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
It's not like Ender intended for it to be lethal force. He didn't say to himself, "That's it, I'm pissed and I'm gonna kill this son of a b**ch!". Let's not forget that Ender was 6 himself.
And similar to what Craig said, speaking for myself personally, if someone comes at me with the clear intent and ability to do great physical harm I wouldn't try to kill that person but I wouldn't risk my own safety by holding back. As far as I'm concerned my attacker forfeits his own physical well being as soon as he chooses to pose a serious threat to mine.
Did Ender take this mentality too far against a stupid 6 year old? Yeah, but he was just a scared 6 year old himself. I never got the impression in E in E or any other book in the series that Ender wasn't filled with guilt and remorse for what he did to Stilson, Bonzo, and the Buggers. At most he acknowledges that none of these incidents are entirely his fault. With both boys Graff and other adults let the situations escalate to the point where they knew that someone would be seriously hurt or killed and did nothing because it was all part of Ender's training.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If, after it was clear that you disabled your attacker, you took a pause and then beat him to death...yeah, that's murder. That's what Ender did.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon:
I never got the impression in E in E or any other book in the series that Ender wasn't filled with guilt and remorse for what he did to Stilson, Bonzo, and the Buggers. At most he acknowledges that none of these incidents are entirely his fault. With both boys Graff and other adults let the situations escalate to the point where they knew that someone would be seriously hurt or killed and did nothing because it was all part of Ender's training.
Exactly.
Does anything in EinE, or any other book, seriously oppose this?
The quote you gave me, kamp101 -- was that Card's last word on the subject, or was it just emotion and confusion coming out of Ender's mouth? You're the one who says Ender never makes mistakes, but what if THAT was a mistake?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If, after it was clear that you disabled your attacker, you took a pause and then beat him to death...yeah, that's murder. That's what Ender did.
But it isnt exactly what he tried to do--it sounds like Ender is standing up for his intent--not the result. If he could go back and decide to kick Stilson somewhere else that "should" still secure himself, I dont think he thinks twice about it.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
Count me in this group.
When you choose to start an unprovoked fight against an innocent party, then you pays your money and you takes your chances. I really don't have a problem with the fact that Ender used lethal force when defending himself.
Suppose I get ambushed in a parking lot tonight by a teenager bent on stealing my wallet or my car. Suppose I choose to fight back, and suppose I kill my attacker during that fight. Should a jury should find me guilty of murder, or acquit me on the grounds of self-defense?
You could make a case of murder--after all, I took a life just to save my wallet or my car.
But I think acquittal is the route to go. I was attacked. I acted in self-defense. I made sure the attacker could never hurt me again. End of story.
That's the chance any bully/criminal takes when they choose to engage in violent behavior.
This is exactly the problem. We grade these things legally -- I'm sure you could be found guilty of some sort of manslaughter at the very least, unless you were being threatened with legal force and were still being threatened with it when you made the decision to resort to lethal force yourself. You are not legally protected by "self defense" if you disable an opponent, then, while they are lying helpless on the ground, beat/kick them to death. Your best hope is some sort of temporary insanity condition or extreme emotional distress manslaughter plea bargain. If, being of sound mind and spirit, you decided for tactical or vindictive reasons to kill the other person, you will have committed murder, be it a lower grade of it.
Ender DID humiliate Stilson by one-shotting him when he was acting tough. He could have cracked a joke and moved on. In the OSC-verse, humiliated bullies tend to have their gangs evaporate. Who really thinks that a gang of 6 year olds like that would gang in to beat Ender up just because he took out Stilson, and at the same time would be willing to stand by and watch him get killed and do-nothing? It's a convoluted set up that turns a supposedly moral hero into a murderer... or at least a.. manslaughterer?
My advice -- if you think you can get away with killing someone in self defense after the threat of lethal force is removed, don't buy a gun or take any self defense lessons because you will be a danger to society.
As to a lot of the other points made: I don't give a shit if Ender feels really, really bad about it. I don't care if he lets someone beat him up to within an inch of his life as some sort of twisted self-punishment. How is any of that useful? The only form of remorse Ender can show that will be meaningful is to <b>admit he was wrong when he killed Stilson.</b> I don't care how guilty someone feels -- if they would do it again, and absolve themselves of responsibility by claiming it was ultimately the fault of the other, that's not morally sound judgment. Which is supposed to be one of Ender's strong points.
Don't conflate feeling bad about it with genuine remorse. "I shouldn't have killed him, I could have found another way to deal with the situation" is the only morally acceptable thing for Ender to think. "It was necessary, but boy do I feel guilty" is moral BS.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, FWIW (and I don't think it matters much to this conversation), I don't think Stilson was six. Ender was six, but he'd skipped a few grades.
Posted by JustAskIndiana (Member # 9268) on :
quote: He could have cracked a joke and moved on.
No, he could not have cracked a joke and moved on. From my experience, the best that could have happened is Ender got beat up, chose not to fight back and the bullies, having been satisfied by their dominance over Ender, would have left without any really serious abuse. Of course, this would only have prompted many more such events to occur. I honestly don't know how you could possibly make a statement like that. Move on where? You're literally surrounded.
quote: In the OSC-verse, humiliated bullies tend to have their gangs evaporate. Who really thinks that a gang of 6 year olds like that would gang in to beat Ender up just because he took out Stilson, and at the same time would be willing to stand by and watch him get killed and do-nothing?
Humiliated bullies make their gangs evaporate, and his buddies love it because they just get to relax and watch the action while they risk nothing. As for the rest of them just watching while Ender continues his beating, I think part of this has to do with the fact that they're all very young and shocked at the brutality of what they see. Honestly, it's a toss-up in most fights whether others will get involved or not. Sometimes a small punch will have all the bully's friends up in arms whereas in others, the friends will just be frozen.
quote: The only form of remorse Ender can show that will be meaningful is to <b>admit he was wrong when he killed Stilson.</b> I don't care how guilty someone feels -- if they would do it again, and absolve themselves of responsibility by claiming it was ultimately the fault of the other, that's not morally sound judgment.
From what I read, Ender didn't want to kill Stilson, nor did he mean to kill him. He was trying to hurt him badly enough that he wouldn't do it again, which meant sending him to the nurse or the hospital was enough The only problem was that he was untrained, and so could not control the damage he did.
Your criteria of morally sound judgment is also kind of ridiculous. When you fight somebody, anything can happen, even if you started the fight with a justified purpose. So if something horrible does happen, does that take away from the original justified purpose? And if you could go back in time, how could you make a better decision having the same information?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
The fact that he died is "BS"; so, it's a weird arguement. It's hard to blame Ender for murder when you barely if at all buy that Stilson could of actually died.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's hard to blame Ender for murder when you barely if at all buy that Stilson could of actually died.
Why?
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: The fact that he died is "BS"; so, it's a weird arguement. It's hard to blame Ender for murder when you barely if at all buy that Stilson could of actually died.
Well it says that he died. So...
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
All he did was kick him twice, and Ender was six.
And I was about edit this in: All I think Bernard did was verbal. He was never a realisitically physical thread to anyone because he wasnt stupid enough to get thrown out.
And in any real life (post highschool) situation where you get in a fight once, most of the time you probably never see that person again--so it's not comparable if one (who is over 18) of us is capable of that. We wouldnt have any case for self defense.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: The fact that he died is "BS"; so, it's a weird arguement. It's hard to blame Ender for murder when you barely if at all buy that Stilson could of actually died.
Well it says that he died. So...
In an not ficticious world involving my non ficticious world view/feelings, I dont think that there would be a non ficticious murder to discuss. So it's akward for me to blame him for murder when I dont think his brutality results in it.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
It is unbelievable umberhulk. Maybe that's why OSC added this completely horrible piece of garbage writing on page 113:
["But Ender was so untrained he had no idea of the damage he was doing, or that his shoes had steel toes. Weren't we clever to keep him safe by insisting he wear shoes like that."]
Really? REALLY?
Your criteria of morally sound judgment is also kind of ridiculous. When you fight somebody, anything can happen, even if you started the fight with a justified purpose. So if something horrible does happen, does that take away from the original justified purpose? And if you could go back in time, how could you make a better decision having the same information?
This is not true. When you fight somebody, some things are unpredictable, and some are not. When someone is on the ground and unable to defend themselves (disoriented post knock-out concussion, or what have you) and you start kicking them in the face, there are a limited set of outcomes.
Kid genius Ender wouldn't need much training to know the difference between messing someone up really bad and potentially lethal blows.
Apparently a lot of people's views are summed up by Mazer on page 113: "Hyrum, I think Ender's actions were perfectly justified. He didn't choose to fight those boys, so the only choice he had was how thoroughly to win."
This could be applied fairly to Bonzo (as it works fictionally) -there's an argument for that, but not to Stilson. Kicking someone to death is the same as pulling a gun on them and executing them when they've already been knocked down and aren't capable of intelligently defending themselves anymore.
I really don't have any desire to take on an extended conversation about what really would or wouldn't happen in a bullying situation, other than to establish the fact that the danger to Ender was not lethal.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
lol @ steal shoes
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Uh, yeah, steel toed shoes is pretty much canon with the original book.
There's a line by Ender's mother than doesn't really make any sense unless you assume Ender's shoes are steel toed or possibly covered with knives.
Upon hearing that he kicked Stilson a couple extra times, she says something along the lines of...
"With your shoe, Ender, that wasn't exactly fair."
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Caveat time: I've never read Exile -- partly because I get increasingly annoyed about the increasing self-contradictions of the Enderverse, and partly because of Orson Scott Card's increasing self-insertional preaching.
But here's my comment: Ender's character had never been about justice. He had always been about compassion - he understood his victims, he loved his victim, and he destroyed the people he understood and loved.
So, people bringing up in comparison self-defense violence against random muggers is irrelevant. You don't know the muggers. You don't love the muggers.
"The fault was Stilson's" is downright psychopathic in comparison to what Ender-Ender (not OSC-mouthpiece-Ender) would say. Ender was fully capable of destroying his victimizer victims but I don't remember him ever faulting anyone to anyone else.
That's OSC-style judgement with his obsession on *who to blame*, not Ender-style judgment with his obsession on *understanding*.
Posted by Steve_G (Member # 10101) on :
I don't think Ender could be convicted of murder. I'm not a fighter, never have been, but once when I was an 8th grader I was walking home in the dark and got jumped by 3 7th graders. Looking back I think they were just looking to have a little fun with me, but at the time from my own perspective it was much more serious. One kid jumped on my back, so I immediatly fell backwards and drove him into the ground as hard as I could. I was working off of pure instinct, since I'd never been in a fight before. The kid got up, but was hurting and the 3 of them started to leave saying they were only having a little fun and I didn't have to take it so serious.
How was I to know how serious they were or weren't? They jumped me in the dark. I feel no regret for having hurt that kid. Were it possible, that I could have killed him I didn't know and couldn't think about it. I was just trying to survive during those few seconds as well.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
When reading Ender's Game, it's clear that Ender didn't think he was killing Stilson. He didn't know Stilson died. That doesn't make kicking him the head okay (ribs, I'm fine with, even kicking him in the groin, a six-year-old doesn't know about testicular torsion), but six-year-olds know not to kick people in the head, pretty much. So yeah, Ender did wrong.
Hearing him justify it is hideous. He didn't try to justify himself in the first book. It's Stilson's fault he got a beating, but lethal force against a helpless opponent is not something Stilson started.
Bonzo, I don't feel sorry for. That was a fight to the death from the get-go. If Ender had said what he said about Bonzo, fine.
The steel-toed boots thing was soooo awful. One of the worst and contrived retcons ever.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: I was just trying to survive during those few seconds as well.
And, again, Ender didn't just fight back out of self-preservation. He disabled his attacker, paused, and then beat him to death.
He wasn't intending to kill Stilson, but he was intending to inflict damage on him that could kill him - not out of immediate self-preservation but because it was his long term solution to the problem of being bullied.
Ender is not a sweet, innocent kid. This is an important part of the book that I think many people gloss over in their identification with Ender as being the nerdy, picked on kid they used to be.
edit: Wait, is the steel-toed sentence real? I thought that was a joke.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It's part of guilt ridden banter between Graff and Rackham, but yes, it's in the book. I suppose if you wanted you could write it off as gallows humor from Rackham but I think it's more likely supposed to be sincere, and is an attempt to bolster the idea that Ender was deliberately set up for deadly fights.
...I think OSC was probably in love with the idea of children as ideal military commanders but as he moved on had to justify this somehow and the way he justified for Ender was rather implausibly successful manipulation of his beliefs and actions. With Bean of course it was the brilliance that Tom so cherishes.
Edit: I agree with this:
quote:Ender is not a sweet, innocent kid. This is an important part of the book that I think many people gloss over in their identification with Ender as being the nerdy, picked on kid they used to be.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Kamp, Stilson certainly had some level of desert in the situation at hand. It is no doubt the case that every qualification necessary for a just war to be engaged in was met with the exception of the proportionality principle. If this is the case, then it is the case that it was the fault of Stilson that SOMETHING happened to him. Whether he deserved to be killed is irrelevant. No, he did not deserve to be killed, but it is a predictable outcome that he could possibly be beaten pretty badly. When someone is beaten pretty badly, it's not uncommon for them to die. A rational person can predict this is a possible outcome of a fight, and regardless of whether or not it was proportional punishment, it wasn't entirely the fault of Ender.
And it's actually possible that the proportionality criterion was met, as there were a number of individuals there who would have maliciously attacked him. If it is the case, as Ender thought it was, that that was the level that needed to be taken in order to protect him not only from Stilson, but from his group of friends, then he was most certainly ethically justified in his actions. That would mean that while engaging in a just war, he only caused as much damage was was necessary in order to assure his own safety.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When someone is beaten pretty badly, it's not uncommon for them to die.
This is generally not true of schoolyard fights.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I have a friend who's grade school little brother gets bullied a lot - he's a little fat, and very sweet and gentle, so that makes them hate him all the more. A few weeks ago, they yanked him off a slide at school, and beat him pretty badly - they broke his nose, his clavicle, several ribs, his right arm, as well as severely bruising his face and body. It's not a stretch to think they might have killed him - thankfully he's making a full recovery.
I'm saying this because I can remember being a kid, and kids don't have the inhibitions adults do. I can remember being scared pretty badly in fights, and while I never tried to kill anyone, I think if I felt a bully was willing to kill me, I might try.
All this is to say, what Ender did was certainly murder, but it also done by him as a child - neither he nor his classmates had any inner morality that kept them from violence. It's understandable.
That being said, having Ender look back at the event with adult wisdom and justify the murder is a little cold. He should at least recognize that he had done wrong.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: All this is to say, what Ender did was certainly murder, but it also done by him as a child - neither he nor his classmates had any inner morality that kept them from violence. It's understandable.
That being said, having Ender look back at the event with adult wisdom and justify the murder is a little cold. He should at least recognize that he had done wrong.
If Ender had no inner morality, as you say, why did he hate himself so much? Why was he so afraid that he was a monster like Peter? After Bonzo, the guilt nearly destroyed him. In fact, that's why they had to hide the fact that both boys died until after the war. If Ender had known the extent of the harm he had done he would have broken down.
And anecdotes aside, I think that serious injury in schoolyard fights is fairly rare, especially among first graders.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I'm sorry Kamp101, but what you are saying seems to be the bleeding heart liberal thinking that says if some one breaks into my home and threatens my person and property, I should go to jail if I defend my person and property.
In essence, saying that it is my fault this person broke into my house and threatened me. That is pure and utter nonsense.
Stilson was not alone, he has his gang with him and he made it clear that he meant to do Ender physical harm. No one has to tolerate that. No one has to allow themselves to be physically assaulted. In the process of that assault in which Stilson was assisted by his gang, he could just as easily have accidentally killed Ender. Why should Ender have to take that risk just to satisfy the bleeding heart liberals and bullies?
He has every right to defend himself, and he has ever right to defend himself beyond the level of assault directed at him. In Ender view, he was not trying to protect himself in the moment, he was trying to protect himself for all time. He was trying to protect himself in a way that he didn't have to do this again every single day until he himself was seriously injured. That is a fair legal right with in the framework that Ender set it.
Now, Ender did not intensionally kill Stilson, that was just an accidental result of Stilson making it clear that he was never going to leave Ender alone. That he was going to attack him again and again, and to do so with extreme prejudice. Ender did what he thought it took to stop the assault against him, both the long term and short term assault. I think that falls within the bounds of legal self-defense.
It is a shame that Stilson died, but he sealed his own fate. He attacked Ender and others, he picked them specifically because he knew or felt the would not or could not fight back.
This infuriates me. If a kid is beat up in school, he is told to defend himself and not come crying to the teacher. If he defends himself he is punished for fighting. The victims of the world can get no relief for bullying. And I personally, have no sympathy for bullies who get their butt kicked by some nerd pushed above and beyond the limits.
Ender legally defended himself, and he defended himself against, not just this one attack, but against all future attacks by someone who was a known and proven bully.
That fact that the bully was too stupid to know enough to back off when he had the chance, is not Ender's fault.
The Bully Stilson made a choice, he chose to attack someone he felt was defenseless; it is not the defenders fault, that the bully it too stupid to see sense.
Stilson make a choice, even after being give several chances to back off, he chose to attack and he lost. I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for that. I'm sorry he is dead as Ender is, but sooner or later, attacking the defenseless is going to lead to attacking someone who is not defenseless, and I'm not going to cry about that.
The only way a bully gets stopped is by getting beat down. By seeing that the defenseless are not really defenseless, they merely choose not to defend themselves until pushed so far that they have no choice but to finally take action.
It is Stilson who commited a crime here, unfortunate that he paid excessively for his crime, but he is the criminal. Ender merely defended himself within a context, that context being to defend himself not against the immediate attack, but against all future attacks that would surely be coming.
Again, bullies don't stop until someone stops them. Ender stopped Stilson; it is merely an unfortunate accident that Stilson died as a result.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
I think you can continue to say Ender was a monster once you show me that an average 6 year old can control himself from emotional distress.
I saw a fifteen year old kid kick another person in the nose this year when they got in a fight, all thier friends stood around and watched. He technically could have killed the other kid, if he was wearing steel toed shoes the other kid would have been pretty injured.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I really don't have any desire to take on an extended conversation about what really would or wouldn't happen in a bullying situation, other than to establish the fact that the danger to Ender was not lethal.
So? It's still aggression on another person, which occasionally results in self-defensive lethality. Whether you're trying to murder someone or just choke them out and take their wallet, they may very much so still kill you with a justifiable response.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"So? It's still aggression on another person, which occasionally results in self-defensive lethality. "
If someone slaps a person, and the other person pulls out a gun and kills him, the argument "So? It's still aggression." seems to me extremely deficient.
That an older Ender is arguing that the blame for the death is a 6-year old kid's is sick. Can you imagine ANY scenario in which a 6-year old is to be blamed for their killing? What's next? Shooting kindergarteners because they trample your flowers or because they vandalize your walls?
If OSC was still politically sane as he was when he first wrote Ender's Game, he'd have realized that the attitude of the initial book was correct: put to trial the NEGLIGENT ADULTS.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, I'd say it was more the adult's fault in both cases for not intervening. Of course according to the book, they couldn't, but they caused the deaths of two young boys who were not exactly very bright to keep picking on Ender, but didn't really deserve to die because of it. Especially the 6 year old. He was kind of.. well... Six.
I'm rather proud of my bleeding heart liberalness, thank you very much. It's kind of useful to be that way. To think that it's not just an aggressive boy that died, but a boy who had a family and a life.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: [QUOTE]
If OSC was still politically sane as he was when he first wrote Ender's Game, he'd have realized that the attitude of the initial book was correct: put to trial the NEGLIGENT ADULTS.
I still don't understand how E in E represents a different mindset from OSC. Besides, the character's thoughts and feelings on events in the story don't necessarily match the author's. Why are people presuming to know what OSC personally thinks with regards to the morality of Ender's actions, now as well as 25 years ago?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I dont think any of the four (including Peter) people who caused it are unnaccountable.
Remember in Speaker for the Dead that Ender says everyone is Lusitania was partially at fault for Marcao's personality?--well, their just about as fault as Stilson was.
I think whenever you interract with someone, you accept that it's going to do something to the other person's personality. If you start a fight with someone, unprovoked, you accept that it's possibly going to make them more violent. You're partially at blame for anything he does back, or does in the future. You're tolerant of the fact that it could, if not right then, lead to major violence in the future. Stilson shares some of the blame, but not all of it; I think kids have a vague understanding of that.
Stilson didnt deserve to die, but he was still a moron.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: If someone slaps a person, and the other person pulls out a gun and kills him, the argument "So? It's still aggression." seems to me extremely deficient.
It is, because a slap is a little bit different than a prolonged aggressive bodily assault where the intent isn't to slap a face but rather to beat a person down.
In these circumstances the perp of the violence might get knifed or just hit wrong in the windpipe or sommat and if they're killed as a result of this this doesn't make the victim a monster, yeah?
Posted by JustAskIndiana (Member # 9268) on :
quote: If OSC was still politically sane as he was when he first wrote Ender's Game, he'd have realized that the attitude of the initial book was correct: put to trial the NEGLIGENT ADULTS.
This is exactly what happened in Ender in Exile...
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
Steve/Bluewizard: If by "bleeding heart liberal" you mean U.S. Law regarding self defense, then guilty as accused. Once the imminent danger / immediate threat of lethal physical harm is removed, one is no longer allowed to use lethal force. If you wrestle a gun away from someone, and break free, you can't turn and shoot them with it and call it self defense. It's not my opinion - it's the law.
I suggest you educate yourself on the law promptly -- it's good citizenship, which hopefully your right-wing viewpoints won't prevent you from embracing.
He has every right to defend himself, and he has ever right to defend himself beyond the level of assault directed at him.
Not legal right, no. Unless you're referring to some sort of magic right one gets when they decide to watch Fox news four hours a day?
Xann: most six year old kids keep their body count pretty low.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
Kamp, what about my comment about jus ad bellum?
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Kamp101, you are vaguely right in your interpretation of 'Self-Defense' law, but only vaguely so.
In Ender's case, the 'imminent danger/immediate threat of physical harm' was not removed, not the way Ender framed it. If he has simply knocked Stilson down, then the fight would have continued later and would have probably escalated now that Stilson knew Ender had some capacity for self-defense. Next time Stilson would have had a bigger gang, and twisted the circumstances very much in his favor. Consequently, if Ender did not end this and all future fight, he would have simply been provoking greater hostility and a greater level of risk in the next fight.
Next, you are allowed to use more force than you are attacked with. You aren't obligated to stand with an attacker and exchange blows. You can use whatever force is necessary to STOP the assault on your person, not just hold it at bay. That frequently means using more force, even extreme force, to stop the attack as quickly and cleanly as possible.
Remember that Ender was being attacked by a gang, who could have very easily have harmed Ender substantially, and even accidentally killed him. Ender is in no way legally obligated to tolerate an assault like that.
As soon as Stilson attacked, he broke the law. He commited a crime against Ender and a crime against society, and Ender had every right to defend himself.
That's what Ender did, but he framed in the framework of winning the whole war, not just winning that one battle. He did just stop this assault, he stop all assault. He made the idea of a potential assault against him to be of such extreme danger to the assaulter, that no one would dare try it. He was a big picture kind of guy.
Now, he did not intend to kill Stilson. Ender said himself he wasn't trained in hand to hand combat and didn't understand full the impact of what he was doing. He defended himself with a specific strategy that I think would have held up in court.
Further, we do not generally hold 6 year olds accountable for their action in the legal sense. Ender was a threat to no one, who was not an imminent threat to him. He attacked no one, he defended himself against an unprovoked and illegal assault.
But he defended himself with a particular strategy. A strategy intended to stop all future attacks. That is a legal precedent that has already played out in court. If a person has a history of attacking people, and specifically of attacking you, and that person has a clear intend and pattern of escalation, and a clear intend of not stopping, then you can defend yourself without an imminent threat if the person come near you. Of course, this is not easy to establish in court. But it is a valid defense.
And I think given Ender's age, his mental framework at the moment, he would surely have had a valid legal defense if this matter ever went to court.
What you seem to be proposing it to turn the perpetrator into the victim and the victim into the perpetrator. If someone breaks the law and commits an illegal assault, they have chosen their path, and they have to accept the consequences.
And let me say that Stilson was not intending to trample on Enders flower beds, he meant to do Ender bodily harm, and that is sufficient cause for Ender to defend himself.
But Ender defended himself on a grander scale. He defended against all future attacks, and I think that is also a valid defense if you can make a reasonable case for the likelihood of those future attacks. In fact, not even the likelihood that Stilson would attack Ender in the future, but solely on Ender's belief that those attack would come.
That is the difference between assault and battery. If I truly belief you are about to harm me, then you have already committed assault. If you do harm me, then you have committed battery. The mere genuine belief in imminent threat is sufficient cause to defend yourself. And Ender believed that future threat and future attacks would surely come, and he was justified in defending against those attack.
Admittedly though, he got carried away. But again with out some type of training or experience in fighting, Ender had no way of knowing the potential out come. He did not murder Stilson, Stilson accidentally died while Ender was defending himself. Stuff like that happens, but if the perpetrator had never broken the law and attacked, they would not now be lying dead. When you choose to commit a crime, that crime comes with a range of potential consequences. If you break into my home while I'm asleep, you run the risk of getting shot. If you don't want to get shot, then don't break the law and put yourself in that situation.
As to Stilson's family, well Jeffery Dalmer and Charles Manson both had families too. That doesn't mean they didn't willfully commit crimes. Crime comes with risk. As a famous TV detective was fond of saying, if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If I truly belief you are about to harm me, then you have already committed assault.
It's possible to be legally guilty of another person's opinion?
quote:As to Stilson's family, well Jeffery Dalmer and Charles Manson both had families too.
Yeah, and you just know they were bullies in grade school.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote: This is exactly what happened in Ender in Exile...
With, seemingly, an authorial condemnation.
quote:Besides, the character's thoughts and feelings on events in the story don't necessarily match the author's
I've not read Exile, but I've read enough of Orson Scott Card to recognize his self-insertional diatribes.
Signs of recognition: That the other guy doesn't offer any rebuttal but merely admires the imparted wisdom of the character. That the character goes into the generic life-lesson rather than the specific actions of the characters. "He chose. Just because he thought I was weaker than him, just because he thought I couldn't protect myself, doesn't mean it stopped being his fault."
Such a sentence seems specific on the surface but in reality it is RIDICULOUSLY abstract, meant to apply to nations and individuals alike.
If they'd stayed at the specific, instead of trying to impart a political diatribe, OSC and Ender would have realized that the sentence "he chose" is ridiculous when referring to a 6 year old "choosing" a battle to the death.
But because in reality OSC didn't *really* intend the lesson to be about Stilson and Ender in particular, but about the USA or Israel and whichever enemies they currently have in the Islamic world, he becomes ludicrous with such proclamations as 6-year-olds "choosing" their own deaths because they're bullies. And the adults in charge not being to blame for this.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
Jon: fight off a gang is not a war, and one cannot legally (or, in my opinion, morally) declare war on groups of people as a single individual. If we take it as an analogy for nations, again we're on really odd ground -- I had to destroy the nation I had already beat so they couldn't hurt me again, or so their allies would leave me alone. What is destruction in this case, once the nation's ability to wage war has been removed -- genocide? Complete eradication of infrastructure? I can't think of anything in this category that wouldn't or shouldn't count as a war crime.
Blue/Wizard: Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
There are differences in domains, provided for by the law. If Ender had been attacked by a group of criminals in his own home, and they had broken into his home without invitation, and the same thing occurred, he would have been more than justified.
There are two reasons why Ender would have been convicted of murder/manslaughter, and they're available from his introspection text in the book:
1) It didn't occur to him that Stilson didn't take a fight like this seriously, that he wasn't prepared for a truly desperate blow.
2) For a moment, the others backed away and Stilson lay motionless. They were all wondering if he was dead. Ender, however, was trying to figure out a way to forestall vengeance. To keep them from taking him in a pack tomorrow.
He had already come to the conclusion that the danger to himself was less than he had estimated, and that the danger he faced was not present, but future danger. He failed to meet several criteria of most self-defense laws:
As to the extent of the right: First, when threatened violence exists, it is the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack; for example, if by closing a door which was usually left open, one could prevent an attack, it would be prudent, and perhaps the law might require, that it should be closed in order to preserve the peace, and the aggressor might in such case be held to bail for his good behavior. Secondly, if after having taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed, he may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger.
Excerpts of sample self defense law are from the Electric Law Library:
From the bullying I've seen or experienced, I can't see how kamp101's points can lead to anything but an eventual confrontation where the victim gets seriously injured. The whole point is to accept the legal verdict of inflicting more force than necessary on a relentless bully in exchange for instilling in him a REAL sense of fear that his actions have consequences. What else is going to happen? Are you going to suspend him? Give him detention?
There are many ways to remove an enemy's power to harm you. It doesn't require eradication of the enemy whether that be a nation or a person. Later in Ender's Game, Ender decided faced another gang only this time he realized the power emanated from the other launchies, and realized some of those launchies were actually decent people. But that's the problem: there isn't going to be an Alai or Shen in every gang or school.
Posted by Steve_G (Member # 10101) on :
I hate it when people take Enders inner thoughts and apply them blanketly to Orsen Scott Card's inner beliefs. We don't know what OSC's inner beliefs are unless he tells them. He gives plenty of opportunity in his op-ed pieces of which many make me cringe as well. However When Card is writing Ender, he is only writing Ender. He is writing the thoughts and memories of a boy who has been traumatized and is still suffering. Ender's inner thoughts are window into his method of reconciling his actions with morality. I think OSC did a splendid job of giving us exactly that. In E in E we get to see how Ender's attitude about his own actions transform from the beginning of the book to the end.
Please judge Ender based on Ender and OSC on OSC. The two are not intertwined.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
They kind of are... He frequently takes over characters and uses them to put out his point of view. He does it all...the... TIME.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
But because in reality OSC didn't *really* intend the lesson to be about Stilson and Ender in particular, but about the USA or Israel and whichever enemies they currently have in the Islamic world, he becomes ludicrous with such proclamations as 6-year-olds "choosing" their own deaths because they're bullies. And the adults in charge not being to blame for this.
It's totally absurd that you can claim to know that that's the point that OSC was trying to make. There's no evidence to support that claim. It's an interesting opinion that you have but nothing more.
Posted by Steve_G (Member # 10101) on :
Show me where OSC speaking as OSC says its ok to use overwhelming force to kill somebody when one is no longer in immediate danger.
This is all kind of silly, especially considering Ender's less than subtle reversal at the end of EinE.
The beauty of good fiction is the author's words are only half the story. The other half is what the reader brings to the table. I can relate in some ways to Ender, which may mean I get a different interpretation of his thoughts and action than somebody else. That's ok. Only a narcissistic author would declare his interpretation of the charachter is the only one. From everything I've read, I can't consider OSC a narcissist.
Posted by ToraMay (Member # 12080) on :
When a child is bullied their whole life and eventually commits suicide (as has happened), we do not blame the victim, but the oppressor. When a child is bullied thier whole life and eventually kills his oppressor, we blame the vitcim... Does this actually make any sense to you whatsoever?
And yes I have been bullied... and yes my life is colored because of that... and no I have not commited suicide, and no I have not killed anyone, At least, I dont think I have.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Steve, have you read the World Watch columns? OSC justifies preemptive war all the time. There is a parallel, quite explicit, in the Enderverse books between individual homicide and war, and that parallel also seems to exist between the books and the OSC-as-OSC essays justifying preemptive war.
Aris wasn't really stretching.
Posted by Rainfox (Member # 12081) on :
Having just re-read the opening chapter of EG, there's a bit to be said for every argument made.
The killing of Stilson, while accidental and unnecessary was done to send a message, and a direct response to an imminent threat.
Obviously this is a fictional situation, and I think that it's not necessary to pull out the US law on self-defense.
As for Ender's moral reprehensibility for saying Stilson was at fault.. He was. Stilson attacked Ender with a gang, while Ender was alone. Ender set out to protect himself with an eye to the future, as he expected he had to live with these people for the rest of his youth, and didn't want to be picked on.
The boy (who is again fictional) didn't deserve death, nor did Ender say he did. Ender said Stilson was at fault for making Ender defend himself. He didn't say his course of action was justified, etc etc etc.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
Jesus.
I also was bullied as a kid. I anticipate that almost everyone here was -- it's sort of what makes you connect with Ender's Game when you read it when you're young.
This is not a "blame the victim" issue, and it is not analogous to normal bullying. Ender one-shotted Stilson. With one kick he put him on the ground in a condition where he couldn't fight back. The gang did not advance to attack him - they stood there and gawked at Stilson. Then Ender chose to continue applying brutal force to inflict grievous injury on Stilson (potentially lethal injury, which he acknowledges in his reflection on the subject) when the imminent, immediate source of danger had been removed.
Ender was justified in his initial action, but not in the continuation thereof. I still argue that his interpretation of the event is wrong, also -- that one-shotting a bully as a twerp of a kid is sufficient to humiliate the bully and convince the bully's gang that he's not a tough guy and they shouldn't follow or listen to him.
It was not Stilson's fault that he died. He did not attempt to apply lethal force and create a situation in which Ender would have been justified in killing him. Even outside of the scope of legal or moral responsibility, and pure causation, Stilson took the same actions taken by countless bullies throughout the history of mankind. The exception case here was Ender's decision -- his course of action.
The only reason people don't consider Ender to be a monster for having done it and are willing to blame Stilson is that Ender kills Stilson while applying about 3% of the force and fury applied by Ralphie against his bully in A Christmas Story, which stretches belief more than just a tad. [[Edited to fix the typos dreadfully preserved in the next post...]]
[ June 06, 2009, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: kamp101 ]
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
"potentially leathel injury, which he acknowledes in his reflection on the subject"
When?
Posted by Craig Childs (Member # 5382) on :
quote:Originally posted by kamp101: [QB] Steve/Bluewizard: If you wrestle a gun away from someone, and break free, you can't turn and shoot them with it and call it self defense. It's not my opinion - it's the law./QB]
I don't know the law, so I'll have to take your word for it. But if what you are saying is true, that's a bad law.
If someone attacks you, with a gun, and you are LUCKY enough to get the gun away from him, you should shoot. Aim to kill and shoot without a second thought.
What else would you do? Just aim the gun and threaten? Throw the gun down? Run away?
Any gun instructor in America will tell you, never aim a gun at someone unless your intent is to pull the trigger (law enforcement officers excluded, of course).
Running away might be a good option, but you better be damn sure he can't catch you from behind!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Any gun instructor in America will tell you, never aim a gun at someone unless your intent is to pull the trigger
"Any?" Well, my very own said that I am not to point a gun at someone unless I am prepared to kill them, and never point your gun at something you are not prepared to destroy.
This is well different than not being 'allowed' to point a gun at someone without the intent to pull the trigger. In a hypothetical home invasion scenario, I am going to be pointing my gun at the hypothetical aggressor whether or not my intent is at that point at time pull the trigger. The actions of the aggressor at that point will determine whether or not I will continue to the trigger-pulling intent phase.
I'm sure going to have the gun pointed at them before then, suh.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
Gun instructors aren't lawyers or priests or moral philosophers. And what's up with this: (law enforcement officers excluded, of course). -- it's reasonable for an officer of the law to hold someone at bay with the threat to shoot, but not for a citizen to do so?
If you get a gun away from someone, and they're not doing anything that can be interpreted as intent or effort to get it back, you can't legally shoot them and call it self defense. If they do lunge at you at all (they don't necessarily have to reach for it) -- you can fire. State laws may differ on this, but depending on your skill with the gun and/or the situation, it may be necessary to demonstrate desire to disable rather than kill (but this isn't clear cut -- the below the waist thing is just in movies). If you have other family members in the home, there's no way in hell anyone would convict you of wrong-doing.
Samprimary: in a home invasion situation, you can most likely just kill them. If I felt pretty safe, I sure wouldn't do it, but legally, anyone who is an intruder in your home (in some states/cases on your property at all), is considered an imminent danger until they leave. That's why in the south your police relatives will give you advice like "If someone's in your house, and you shoot'em, and they fall out the window, drag'em back in."
People should have to know all this before even owning a gun in my opinion, but I'm just one of those unreasonable "bleeding-heart" liberal types, I guess. I mean, after all, the whole grounds of needing a license for a car are that you can cause someone's unlawful or undeserved death through its misuse. A gun's certainly nothing like that...
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
umberhulk: The bit about "I didn't have the skill to hurt them enough to prevent future attacks, yet not kill them" (pg. 32) [just below "I don't blame myself, you know..." "I'm responsible for killing Stilson and Bonzo and all the formics in the universe. But I'm not to blame."
It's a big change from:
"I killed ten billion buggers, who were as alive and wise as any man, who had not even launched a third attack against us, and no one thinks to call it a crime."
and
"All his crimes weighed heavy on him, the deaths of Stilson and Bonzo no heavier and no lighter than the rest."
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Eh. I'm not sure that implies that killing Stilson was his intent. He might merely be saying that kicking him in the face was the only thing that made sense. And that he might be alive if he had the strength/training to hurt him some other way.
Of course, I still dont know all the context. And you could be right.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
In the situation where someone attacks me with a gun, and I manage to get the gun away from him, there are circumstances where I am absolutely allowed to shot him.
Just because, I have his gun, doesn't mean the attack has stopped. If the perpetrator continues aggression, I will absolutely without reservation shoot him, because I know if he gets the gun back he will shoot me.
Even if the gun attacker appears to surrender or back off, if I feel this is merely a ploy to gain time and advantage, then despite the seeming passivity of the attacker, he still fully intend bodily harm to me, and I am fully justified in protection myself.
This gets down to my impression of the matter. Assault does not require physical contact, only the belief on the part of the victim that physical harm is likely and imminent. Though fairly, something, some action, has to provoke that belief.
Assault - 3. Law. a. An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another. b. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.
Notice that threat alone constitutes 'Assault'. When physical contact occurs, then assault become battery.
Battery - b. Law. The unlawful and unwanted touching or striking of one person by another, with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact
Again, just because I have the gun, doesn't mean the attack is over. If I genuinely believe that the gun attacker still intends to do me bodily harm, in other words he is only fake surrendering, I am still warranted in defending myself. In fact, I might just shoot him in the knee for good measure, just to make sure he can't press his advantage before the police get there.
In a more hand-to-hand attack/defense situation, I absolutely do not have to stand there and trade blows with the attacker. I am able to use whatever force in necessary to STOP the attack on my person, and stop it immediately. I don't not have to allow myself to be attacked or injured in the name of fair play or the 'code of the playground'. I simply do not have to tolerate that.
If someone punches me, and I punch them back, that does not stop the attack. I have to response with overwhelming force to both destroy the attacker will and ability to continue the attack. So, yes indeed I am allowed to response with more force than I am attacked with.
And that is what Ender did, he used whatever force he felt was necessary to both stop the actually assault and the attacker will to continue the assault. Even as the attack went on, that was Ender's stated goal - to destroy the will to war.
Steve_G says -
"Show me where OSC speaking as OSC says its ok to use overwhelming force to kill somebody when one is no longer in immediate danger."
I'm shifting that statement into a new context to help me with a point. In this situation, Ender clearly saw very real and imminent danger. If he did not use overwhelming force, it could have provoke the gang into attacking. If he did not use overwhelming force, there was the very real possibility that an attack was imminent the next day, and the day after that, and the day after that.
Ender saw very real and proven risk every single day in the future; real proven risk because Stilson was a habitual bully. The longer Ender provokes the war, provoked continual battle after battle, the greater the risk of himself being injured. Further, as in real war, each battle improve the strategy of the attacker, and thereby increases the risk during the next attack. Further, future attacks increase in intensity as an act of vengeance and retribution.
You don't mildly defeat a bully without paying as extremely high price later, unless...as Ender did...you absolutely and completely defeat him the first time.
So, the point is, that Ender did not see the 'risk' stop. Just because Stilson was down, did not mean the danger was also 'down'. He was faced with two possible outcomes. Either his own actions make it worse and increased the very real danger, or his actions made it better and absolutely stopped all risk and danger to himself. He choose the later, and choose wisely in my view.
Yes, with absolute certainty I believe that Stilson was responsible for his own injuries. You simply can not go through life committing acts of unprovoked violence and not think that someday there will be a price to pay. You simply can not attack every geek and nerd you see on the mistake belief that you will never find someone willing to defend himself at all cost.
If you commit a crime, you have to accept that there will be consequences.
I absolutely do not subscribe to the boys-will-be-boy point of view when it comes to bullying. Bully's bully because they are allowed to, because no one intervenes to stop them. They absolutely 'walk the halls with impunity', because we allow them too.
And invariably, when someone defends themselves against a bully, it is the defender, not the offender, who is in trouble. This is because, it is far easier for the 'administration' to deal with the occasional defender than it is to confront the habitual bull. And especially so when, as in a school situation, the bully is popular in the eyes of the administration, and the nerd and geeks are on the fringe.
We've heard from both sides of the issue, and I absolutely believe that those who are defending Stilson, are very much in the 'blame the victim' camp. Stilson make a choice to engage in habitual violence, I have no sympathy that he came to a violent end that he himself provoked.
And I do have great sympathy for Ender in this circumstance because he was force to carry the knowledge and guilt that he was force by Stilson own action to defend himself and by that action, Stilson died.
Ender did not kill Stilson. Ender defended himself again an unprovoked and illegal attack from which he gave his attacker several opportunities to back out. As a result of that unprovoked attack, Stilson, who naturally assumed none of his victims posed any threat, died. But for the most part, Stilson died of his own stupidity, and his own bullying thuggery, of his own willful and unlawful choices.
He would be alive today, it he had simply NOT chosen to live a life of violence and thuggery.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Steve/bluewizard
[ June 06, 2009, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: BlueWizard ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:He would be alive today, it he had simply NOT chosen to live a life of violence and thuggery.
All six to eight years of it? *laugh* Dude, seriously, that's more than a bit ridiculous.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
BlueWizard: IF you'll read what I wrote, you'll see I already pointed out that physical contact is not necessary (my use of the phrase "lunging at" being a proper justification"). If you refer to my earlier post where I posted the link to some example self-defense law, you'll also realize that the interpretation of the threat is qualified with words like "reasonable" (interpretation) "imminent" (threat) etc. I seriously doubt "I suspected it was only a fake surrender!" or "He might have attacked me in a week!" would hold up in court if you shot someone in those circumstances.
Continuing on... here's a paragraph you should internalize:
You don't have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying. You don't have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying. You don't have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying. You don't have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying. You don't have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying. You don't have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying. You don't have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying. You don't have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying. You don't have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying. You don't have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying. You don't have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying. You don't have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying. You don't have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying. You don't have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying.
I'll give that a chance to sink in.
Sunk in?
Now maybe?
Come on, at least by now!!
I don't care that Ender knocked the bully over with a kick. Punch him in the face! Throw him on the ground! Go ahead! I wouldn't have cared if he had kicked him once or twice in the ribs for good measure, really, after that. If he had the proper training and they were older kids, I would have wholly endorsed Ender choking Stilson out until he crapped himself and then stuffing him in a closet. It worked pretty well when Gene LeBell did it to Steven Seagal.
In any of those situations, my response would have been "Well, Stilson was asking for it." That's not what we're talking about, though - -- we're talking about a someone getting killed. By repeated kicks to the face, ribs, crotch, etc. By a 6 year old. As a response to bullying. When the imminent threat had been removed and Ender could have left that day while the kids were sitting around trying to figure out how bad Stilson was hurt after the first blow.
I mean, come on? How many stories do we have about bullies having their pathetic reign of childhood terror ended in one way or another? Almost all of them result in the bully getting humiliated. Other than in the situation with Ender, how many of them result in the bully getting killed? How can you even think that was a necessary course of action?
Ender's actions were not necessary.
Look at this:
quote:If someone punches me, and I punch them back, that does not stop the attack. I have to response with overwhelming force to both destroy the attacker will and ability to continue the attack. So, yes indeed I am allowed to response with more force than I am attacked with.
And that is what Ender did, he used whatever force he felt was necessary to both stop the actually assault and the attacker will to continue the assault. Even as the attack went on, that was Ender's stated goal - to destroy the will to war.
How many times do I have to deal with this?
1) You have to (strategically) and are justified (legally) in removing the immediate threat in self-defense situations -- whatever this takes.
2) You are not required to nor are you justified in removing all capacity for another party to hurt anyone again, up to and including their death at your hands, especially not if their crime so far is threatening to carry out "assault" or "battery."
3) Ender had already ended the current fight. Stilson was unable to continue, and his gang was standing around, shocked, trying to decide if Stilson was dead (previously quoted text). Ender made his decision to stop the bullying the next day(again, as quoted in the text.)
4) Whether or not Ender's decision would have been successful strategically is ambiguous at the very least. It's most likely effect would have been to have gotten him kicked out of his school (that is, without intervention from Graff, etc.) If he somehow miraculously stayed in school and had the opportunity to be confronted again, he may have faced kids who were hungry for revenge and were unwilling to split up and fight him one on one -- that's as likely if not more likely than simply cowering at the brutal weird kid. As I mentioned before, the kids who were standing around clueless might have jumped in to pull Ender off of Stilson, and a new fight with them would have ensued, when Ender could have just walked away.
Under your argument, a school shooter who singled out bullies would be justified in stopping future threats of assault. Don't be ridiculous.
EDIT: Fixing bold tags.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I think bulltying generally ends with the bully getting thrown is Juvy and/or growing up--not because they get defamed. And that the strategic success or lack of is ambigious period. Bernard was a different example than Stilson.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
He kicked the kid in the balls while he was down. That's kind of harsh and goes against unwritten dude rules. He had already won.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In any of those situations, my response would have been "Well, Stilson was asking for it." That's not what we're talking about, though - -- we're talking about a someone getting killed.
So intent does not matter? You kill the guy with a kick to the balls while not at all intending to cause lethal harm, you're a monster?
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
Intent to harm/maim/potentially kill another kid makes you a pretty bad kid. It may not make you evil or a monster if you factor in issue of abuse / emotional distress, but it sure as hell does not make one a moral paragon.
And a sidestep here -- intent matters, but it's not everything. There's having intent, and then being reasonable in trying to carry out that intent. There are serious issues with good intentions coupled with a "ends justify the means" mentality, esp. w/r/t Graff in these books. There are intentions and then there are intelligent, reasonable means of trying to translate intentions into action.
Besides, quit this editing into snippets BS -- Ender kicked Stilson repeatedly, in the face, ribs, crotch, etc. while he was defenseless on the ground. Doing that and just putting someone in the hospital is really bad. If I had a kid who did that, I'd try to get them some serious psychiatric help -- we're talking about sociopathic level disproportionate response or weighing of the means to carry out some supposed "bully free existence" end.
And apologies for being long-winded, but one more thing has to be made clear -- just carrying out the action could be the result of all kinds of things. He was obviously a stressed out and abused kid (largely by Peter and Graff's plans for him, though you'd have to list the nu-Wiggin-parents as allowing the abuse to take place and being pretty god awful parents if you accept all the new practically-omniscient characteristics they've gotten in the new series). It was a bad thing to do, but it doesn't necessarily make him a monster. Looking back on it as an adult and saying he was not to blame and that Stilson chose to die makes him a monster. It's mostly an EIE issue.
Posted by JustAskIndiana (Member # 9268) on :
Kamp101 here's a sentence you should internalize:
Nobody here said you have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying. Nobody here said you have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying. Nobody here said you have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying. Nobody here said you have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying. Nobody here said you have to kill bullies to stop them from bullying.
If you had read what BlueWizard wrote, you would have realized that the four points you mention DO NOT CONTRADICT BlueWizard except for one thing:
quote:You are not required to nor are you justified in removing all capacity for another party to hurt anyone again
This is a loaded statement; I don't think it's true in general. But here's what I know about the specific situation:
Ender WANTED to beat the living hell out of Stilson. As you point out, Ender would be in legal trouble. Stilson would also be in trouble (who would not be dead, but instead seriously injured or hospitalized). Perhaps both would be suspended for an amount of time, and other disciplinary action would follow. Then a while later both are back in school (assuming nobody has been moved elsewhere) and everything is the same except for one thing: the bullying has stopped.
This is what would have been desirable, except for one thing: Stilson ended up dead. Why? Because Ender was untrained in the action he took and took it too far. So, did Ender, as you say, take unnecessary action? Of course, considering Stilson died. But why do you keep writing like Ender was going for Stilson's death? He only realized Stilson had probably died later on in battle school.
Let me say one other thing: The other main issue here is just our own experiences, our real life "data" if you will, are all different. So we all think things like, "This wouldn't have worked!" or "He didn't need to do this!". Look, there are all kinds of people out there; both the punks who quit after a little humiliation and the hardcore morons who corner you after school with machetes with three other kids. But yes, since we're dealing with a 6 year old kid, a lot of force was not needed...but little Ender could not have known that.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
A lot of what I said contradicts a lot of what Blue/Wizard said. I just re-read the post. Should I make a side by side list for you? Just look for key words like the use of "immediate" and "imminent" danger the time-line implied, and the condemnation of Stilson's choice of a "life of thuggery" and a lot of the other raving nonsense in that post.
"but little Ender could not have known that."
This is the contradiction that OSC can't write himself out of, that he TRIED to with that awful steel toed boots retcon --> how much force does it take for a 6 year old to kill another one, and how did Ender not know he was inflicting that much damage when he's a super genius? "Oh, poor little Ender, he had to hurt his bully so bad and he didn't even know he killed him!"
Think of the news headlines: "6 year old kills fellow classmate by kicking him repeatedly in the face and torso. Boy claims he didn't know he was applying enough force." How fast would that cycle through our newspapers and be cited as an example of how our society is falling apart? Try and find an example of any 6 year old killing another in recent times that's not a gun accident.
The implication of every argument leveled in Ender's defense is this stupid euphemism for maiming or killing, "removing all capacity to hurt again," "destroy[ing] the will to war." In the original continuity this was dealt with as humanity's mistake -- the admiral who tries to pre-emptively strike Lusitania to eradicate the threat of the descolada is laughed at when he says he was trying to do what Ender Wiggin would have done.
Suddenly the plot line of the old sequels is gone -- Ender looks back and thinks he did everything right, not that he was manipulated into committing murder and genocide by the adults, not that his actions against Stilson and Bonzo were crimes, but that he is not to blame.
Just think of what it would take for a 6 year old to kill another 6 year old by kicking him to death. Think of what it would look like. We're talking Irreversible levels of gore here. Oh he didn't know, and now he's so sad... the poor little guy!
Posted by JustAskIndiana (Member # 9268) on :
I really wish OSC would make at least one post in this thread.
I'll say this again: "Removing the capacity to wage war" and "destroying the will to fight" =/= killing. What the novels investigate is what happens if the two coincide.
The following conclusion can be supported from the original novels: that humanity was not to blame for Ender's xenocide; however, it is responsible for the xenocide. Ender says in the original novels that even if he had known, he would still have done the same thing, although he would have been much less efficient in doing so. The great tragedy here is that all avenues of communication had failed, humanity had already been attacked twice, and there is no reason to assume it would not be attacked again. The Admiral who tries to destroy Lusitania is clearly at fault because he only looked at what Ender did and not why he did it. All avenues of approach had not been tried out, and even if the people of Lusitania said they had a better solution, it would make no difference. It does not compare to the situation that humanity was placed in the first novel.
Posted by The Hopper (Member # 12083) on :
quote:Originally posted by kamp101: It's a distinctly wrong claim. Ender is the only responsible party in this instance. I'm sorry, but how many people here were ever involved in bully situations? How many people on the planet earth? How many resorted to killing the bully to solve them?
It is not Stilson's fault that he got killed. It would be Stilson's fault if he got punched in the face and given a black eye, choked unconscious, reported to the teacher, etc. These are all acceptable responses to the situation. They are normal, human responses. They make one say, "Well he had it coming."
Killing Stilson was morally wrong, AND strategically wrong. As Ender proves later in the book himself, the best way to deal with a bully is to humiliate them (he does this with Bernard and the whole "watch your butt" thing). There he acts like a reasonable human being and solves the problem in a moral and strategically sound way.
The fact that Ender can't look back and see he made the wrong decision means his character is currently being written in a really stupid way. Oh wait, Ender can't make mistakes, because that would break his character, and we can't have him actually develop now, can we?
If you actually think Stilson is at fault for getting killed for acting like a normal 6 year old bully, you are a morally depraved individual, and I hope Mr. Card's writing hasn't contributed to putting you in this state. You should look up the law regarding self defense, excessive force, what measures are merited based on the threat, etc. and think of what it means in moral terms to act to kill someone after having already overpowered them.
The Bonzo thing is a grey area -- it only works through suspension of disbelief. You have to believe that one kid can kill and older stronger kid with one well placed headbutt. I think the odds of that happening are about 0.0002% personally, and as the fight is written, Ender kills Bonzo while taking acceptable self-defense actions.
To summarize the fault / causation one more time --as people always seem to have trouble with this (google Aristotle and his different causes as a starting point-- Stilson started a situation in which Ender killed him, but he did not start a situation in which a predictable or reasonable or morally defensible response from Ender involved Stilson getting killed. Ender made the decision and performed the actions that resulted in Stilson dying. This is not a bear poking situation, but one in which there are moral and legal responsibilities that Ender abandoned and chose not to abide by, his deviations from them in this case far, far, far, far, far outweighing the deviations from such responsibilities inherent in the actions taken by Stilson.
He is still clinging to the fact that he made the right decision, strategically, morally, whatever. When he considers all things and conflates all motivations he decides it was the right action. We are somehow supposed to overlook this because he feels really bad about having to have made the right decision?
Kamp101, hi, how are you doing? I read your post and it got me thinking that you are so completely convinced you have the moral higher ground that it disgusts me.
Let me tell you something about myself: I believe that every man, woman, boy and girl is directly responsible for everything that happens to them. However, I do not believe in the slightest that what I think is the highest moral ground. Unlike you, I consciously decide on my ethics. And yes, that means I consciously accept the responsiblity for my ethics.
That being said, let me tell you another thing about myself: I was bullied through middle school and grade school. Big deal, right? Millions of kid's get bullied every day. Why should I be any different?
But I am different. Maybe it's a pathology, maybe it's just hate, but I think ender did the world a favor by polishing off those incredibly stupid, idiotic, immature bastards.
I sympathize with those kids who have horrible lives and decide their not going to put up with it any more and blow the brains out of those bullies that are so undisputably evil.
You might think I'm crazy. You might think I was one of those loner kids with no friends who everybody picked on. You're absolutely right. But that doesn't make me less of a person and that doesn't make bullies less stupid.
Bullies are afraid. They pick on the weak because they can't take the heat when competing with the big boys. So not only are they horrible, evil creatures, but they deserve to be shot. The funny thing about today's world is we're not living in the middle ages, where the strong had swords and could crush weaklings always. Nowadays any young, tortured, tormented soul can pick up a gun and get sweet sweet justice.
You probably think I'm evil. Of course you do, but that's because you have the hubris to think you stand on the higher moral ground.
There's no such thing as a higher moral ground. You make decisions and stick to them. When the results come back around you don't whine and say "it's not my fault." That's reserved for people who think they are right, who think they are doing good in the world but don't want to see how their actions and beliefs affect others.
I don't know anything about you. I don't presume to know anything about you. But I do know myself, and I know that I whole-heartedly approve of sticking a gun down chacho's throat, spitting in his face, and then laughing as one pulls the trigger. Good riddance. The world's better off.
You might be thinking I'm some evil sumbitch for even considering such a thing. But I don't believe in evil. I believe in choice, and consequences. And that's the difference between you and me, Kamp101.
Will I go to jail if I do something like that? You bet I will. But I won't whine to the judge and beg to be let off the hook. I'll say, "Your honor, I pulled that trigger with full knowledge of my self, my actions, and their consequences. I don't claim I am right or that he deserved it, but I will claim that I made the choice I am satisfied with, and I have no regrets."
And you know what? I would've enjoyed it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by JustAskIndiana: I really wish OSC would make at least one post in this thread.
Highly unlikely. Sadly, he rarely visits Hatrack these days.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Kamp101, hi, how are you doing? I read your post and it got me thinking that you are so completely convinced you have the moral higher ground that it disgusts me.
Wait, I've seen this before.
These two are going to fall in LOOOOVE!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Maybe it's a pathology....
quote:But I do know myself, and I know that I whole-heartedly approve of sticking a gun down chacho's throat, spitting in his face, and then laughing as one pulls the trigger.
Yeah, that's probably a pathology. Takes a special kind of person to lie about having one, though.
Grow up a bit, then post again when you're ready to be a human being.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
Hopper: did you seriously just must a reference (albeit a spelling-challenged one) to a Sublime song? If you want to pretend that Ender is a Rorschach-esque anti-hero fulfilling your private revenge fantasies, then go ahead. I don't care if fictional characters behave that way -- I've enjoyed my share of Tarantino films. My entire argument is contingent upon the point that Ender's supposed to be some kind of paragon of morality, which Card has frequently acknowledged, both implicitly and explicitly, inside and outside of the books.
I seriously doubt Card would add anything useful to this discussion. Card does not actually argue with people on issues like this based by engaging them in a valid discussion, but by picking some random facts about their background and using them to trivialize that person's point of view (and also denying them any autonomy in their decision making).
This shouldn't surprise anyone, as Card's favorite characters do this all the time. Here's an example of Ender doing it:
quote:“Xenocide is Xenocide,” said Stryka. “Just because Ender didn’t know they [the buggers] were ramen [i.e. human] doesn’t make them any less dead.”
Andrew sighed at Stryka’s unforgiving attitude. It was the fashion among Calvinists at Reykjavik to deny any weight human motive in judging the good or evil of an act . . . Andrew did not resent it—he understood the motive behind it.
Here's an example of Card doing it recently in a really annoying fashion:
quote:I read a review of Up in The Weekly Standard that seemed to miss the point. In fact, the reviewer claimed that the problem with the film was that in certain places it was boring.
Boring? Is he insane?
No, he's just been trained by American animated films to expect one dominant emotion above all others: excitement.
or:
quote:Author Don Calame chose, irritatingly enough, to write the book in present tense. This does nothing but add a needless layer of falseness to the story – when we want to tell something important and true, we always tell it in past tense. That's how English works, and Calame is an unfortunate victim of the pretensions of bad creative writing classes.
His reviews, articles (and increasingly his books) are just peppered with this thing.
What's so annoying about it that it's basically a nested logical fallacy. First of all, it's ad hominem -- addressing only the person and not the argument itself. Second, it's an irrelevant conclusion - someone having taken gone to film school doesn't necessarily make their opinion on a subject wrong. He usually makes these assumptions without any proof, and throws these points out in a way where he is either affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent.
Kudos -- because you have to be a really talented writer to cram as many logical fallacies into a single sentence as he does on a regular basis.
[Personal admission -- the second OSC example really pissed me off lately as Neal Stephenson is one of my favorite writers and frequently uses the present tense, and I can think of countless examples of other writers who write well AND for a popular, generally non-academic audience who use present tense all the time.]
Posted by The Hopper (Member # 12083) on :
quote:Originally posted by kamp101: Hopper: did you seriously just must a reference (albeit a spelling-challenged one) to a Sublime song? If you want to pretend that Ender is a Rorschach-esque anti-hero fulfilling your private revenge fantasies, then go ahead. I don't care if fictional characters behave that way -- I've enjoyed my share of Tarantino films. My entire argument is contingent upon the point that Ender's supposed to be some kind of paragon of morality, which Card has frequently acknowledged, both implicitly and explicitly, inside and outside of the books.
I seriously doubt Card would add anything useful to this discussion. Card does not actually argue with people on issues like this based by engaging them in a valid discussion, but by picking some random facts about their background and using them to trivialize that person's point of view (and also denying them any autonomy in their decision making).
This shouldn't surprise anyone, as Card's favorite characters do this all the time. Here's an example of Ender doing it:
quote:“Xenocide is Xenocide,” said Stryka. “Just because Ender didn’t know they [the buggers] were ramen [i.e. human] doesn’t make them any less dead.”
Andrew sighed at Stryka’s unforgiving attitude. It was the fashion among Calvinists at Reykjavik to deny any weight human motive in judging the good or evil of an act . . . Andrew did not resent it—he understood the motive behind it.
Here's an example of Card doing it recently in a really annoying fashion:
quote:I read a review of Up in The Weekly Standard that seemed to miss the point. In fact, the reviewer claimed that the problem with the film was that in certain places it was boring.
Boring? Is he insane?
No, he's just been trained by American animated films to expect one dominant emotion above all others: excitement.
or:
quote:Author Don Calame chose, irritatingly enough, to write the book in present tense. This does nothing but add a needless layer of falseness to the story – when we want to tell something important and true, we always tell it in past tense. That's how English works, and Calame is an unfortunate victim of the pretensions of bad creative writing classes.
His reviews, articles (and increasingly his books) are just peppered with this thing.
What's so annoying about it that it's basically a nested logical fallacy. First of all, it's ad hominem -- addressing only the person and not the argument itself. Second, it's an irrelevant conclusion - someone having taken gone to film school doesn't necessarily make their opinion on a subject wrong. He usually makes these assumptions without any proof, and throws these points out in a way where he is either affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent.
Kudos -- because you have to be a really talented writer to cram as many logical fallacies into a single sentence as he does on a regular basis.
[Personal admission -- the second OSC example really pissed me off lately as Neal Stephenson is one of my favorite writers and frequently uses the present tense, and I can think of countless examples of other writers who write well AND for a popular, generally non-academic audience who use present tense all the time.]
Ah. That explains a lot. If I understand you correctly, (and I'm not sure I do), what ticks you off about orson scott card's books is his inability to look at a situation from another point of view and to trivialize all others who attempt to do so.
Surprisingly, I agree. Based on the other post, I thought your hang-up was simply that ender was a monster. Maybe he is, but I wouldn't know why you would keep reading if you thought that way. I shrug.
Anyways, I'd like to make some clarifications about my previous post. It is a revenge fantasy for me to blow the brains out of all my middle school bullies, yes, but only a revenge fantasy.
I know the consequences of that action, thus I choose not to act on my impulses. I don't think it's truly a pathology, unless having fantasies qualifies as pathology, which would qualify almost everyone on earth as having a pathology. O.o
I was kind of hurt at somebody's assumption that I needed to grow up a litte. That person, by making that statement, implied that they were all ready grown, also implying in a back-handed sort of way that they didn't need to change their view-point or reconsider their assumption about me. After all, the grown man is always correct compared to the silly child. That really doesn't sit well with me, namely because no one has finished growing.
You grow until you die. And when you stop growing, you figuratively kill yourself. So I hope you guys can understand how that statement, "that I need to grow up" bothered me.
Of course, to me, there is no such thing as "growing up". There is only Growth, which I welcome heartily.
It's true that I need to work out my anger over my school bullying. But the fact that anyone would tell me to simply "grow up" reveals a callousness that not even someone like I possesses.
Anyway, Kamp101, I still don't know very much about you, but I think I understand a little more now. I don't believe you hate ender for his monstrosity(though I could be wrong), but for Orson's inability to view things from multiple sides of view.
If that is the case, then I think I can sympathize.
:edit: No. I did not make any reference to any sublime song. don't know what you thought the reference was, but I assure you, it's purely coincidental.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I know the consequences of that action, thus I choose not to act on my impulses.
Good. Let me suggest another reason: shooting helpless people in the face is evil.
quote:That really doesn't sit well with me, namely because no one has finished growing.
I certainly need to grow some more, myself. But I am perfectly capable of looking at my children and saying, "Relative to them, I am more grown."
quote:But the fact that anyone would tell me to simply "grow up" reveals a callousness that not even someone like I possesses.
Yes, I am generally callous and usually pitiless. I do not, however, joke about shooting people in the face.
quote:No. I did not make any reference to any sublime song.
The lines in question, from their song "Santeria," are these: "Daddy's got a new .45 / and I won't think twice to stick that barrel straight down Sancho's throat. / Believe me when I say that I got somethin' for his punk ass."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Did Ender know he was killing Stilson when he kicked him?
He knew he'd killed Bonzo AFTER he'd killed him.
He did not know he was destroying the buggers.
(I haven't read Ender in Exile; I'm skimming the thread to avoid spoilers...)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's just that it's a bit... oooo. there's a random butterfly in my apartment...
Creepy to say you want to shoot someone in the face, and rather harsh.
And, the way OSC writes like that does drive me crazy. Which is why I should ignore it.
And do something about this little butterfly. It's so cute.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Tom, I can see where the guy is coming from though. Kamp1 has made some of the more pretentious arguements. I don't like it when people make the "If you think this, then you" arguements.
But calm down, Hopper.
Anywho, was there any good, intentional comic relief in Exile? I'm on the fence about reading it.
[ June 08, 2009, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You might think I'm crazy.
Kind of hard to discern that from just a few posts, but you sure post like a crazy person.
Posted by kylesellers (Member # 12087) on :
Alot of the discussion here is based upon the "legality" of Ender's response to being attacked and how he responded disproportionally.
I think that it is irrelevant. Legally, he would not have been found responsible, but because of his age--not his "self-defense" arguments. But that does not matter--this was a necessary scene in the book, for it showed that he was a general and not a foot soldier.
Ender thought about his actions (more likely he reacted based upon his internal beliefs) and acted accordingly, with a long term perspective. Legally, at least in 2009, self-defense covers the removal of the present threat alone, and in a civil state this is a reasonable law. On a battlefield, it is pure foolishness. Part of the reason for selecting such young children for Battle School may have been to start with a clean slate, before the impression of social norms and values had occurred.
But Ender was not selected and then trained for either A) his awareness of the intricacies of self-defense legal issues, or B) his restraint in dispute resolution. He was chosen for this ability to think ten moves ahead of his opponent. Had he stayed on Earth, he would have over time learned to reconcile his long term thinking with society's expectations, and he probably would have then made a poorer general.
I liken it to the dropping of the atom bombs during World War II. Totally disproportionate, and despite what anyone will tell you in school, it was meant to target the civilian population and break their spirit. There were legitimate military targets, but nothing that required an atomic bomb. It was a "Total War" scenario, which has occurred all throughout history, where the civilian population, sadly, becomes a legitimate target. Only by such overwhelming force can peace eventually be achieved and more civilian lives be saved in the long run.
Anyways, I am not an author, critic, lawyer or a soldier, so these are just my two cents on the matter.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kylesellers: Anyways, I am not an author, critic, lawyer or a soldier,
Haha. The obligatory response is "But this is the internet!"
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
Hi Kyle. I'm not arguing that Ender's actions couldn't possibly be justified from the viewpoint of an uber-self-protective military pragmatist who will stop at nothing to eliminate threats to his person, species, etc. I'm arguing that they're not justifiable morally. The legal bit is a "least he could do" proxy in this case, as he doesn't even achieve bare minimum ethical conduct in some cases... unless anyone wants to argue that his killing Stilson was somehow a profound act of civil disobedience.
I don't think it's a stretch to say that a supposedly super innately moral kid wouldn't kill another kid without any more threat to his person than what millions of kids in the history of time have dealt with without resorting to extreme violence against a helpless victim.
quote:I don't like it when people make the "If you think this, then you" arguements.
Sorry for throwing them in there, but I think in both cases (that I remember) it came from complete exasperation and just involved restatement -- little to no hyperbole required.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:he doesn't even achieve bare minimum ethical conduct in some cases... unless anyone wants to argue that his killing Stilson was somehow a profound act of civil disobedience.
I don't think it's a stretch to say that a supposedly super innately moral kid wouldn't kill another kid without any more threat to his person than what millions of kids in the history of time have dealt with without resorting to extreme violence against a helpless victim.
In what way was Ender written as being "super innately moral?" Empathetic does not mean sympathetic.
By virtue of being alive, Ender was repressed. As a third, he earned automatic pariah status. Furthermore, the culture around him had been frustrated from acting on their enculturated disdain by the monitor. Remember the scene before Stilson attacked him? All the pent up anger and frustration-- Ender knew when they took the monitor out, even before he had it verified when he came back to class, that he was going to be walking into trouble.
Furthermore, he discovered that no adults were going to come save him.
While what he did to Stilson (and please remember that Ender wasn't aware that he'd killed Stilson, either during the attack or afterward) was certainly not moral, Ender wasn't in a civilized, moral environment. He was in an artificial environment, constructed precisely to test his self-protective/pragmatic nature.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
I don't know how you could miss the fact that OSC spends all of the books rubbing the reader's nose in Ender's moral superiority? Graff, Valentine, etc. always insist that Ender is extremely good (and the reader is meant to believe it). The character develops into the founder of the ultimate really good religion and goes around the galaxy making flawless moral pronouncements. The big thing with EIE is that it makes the continuity so that he looks back and doesn't take on any blame for what he did -- which is in direct contrast to Chapter 15 in the original Ender's Game, where he looks back on what he's done with shame and considers his acts crimes.
The only thing abnormal about the environment Ender was in when confronted with Stilson was that he didn't have a monitor... which means it was just like any present day bullying situation. No exceptional circumstances. His third status isn't worse than any other pariah status anyone else has had, and I'm pretty certain when he reflects back on the Stilson fight when fighting Bonzo he knows that his life wasn't in danger during any earlier physical encounter (like it is with Bonzo).
Whether or not Ender was aware he killed Stilson is irrelevant in determining whether or not what he did was moral -- he kicked the hell out of a guy who was disabled and on the ground to achieve some end that wasn't immediate, but for "tomorrow" and "the next day." He knew, and we find out immediately, that he'd done enough damage to put Stilson in the hospital.
Are these actions excusable as the overzealous mistakes of desperate, manipulated boy? Maybe? Is it the end that Stilson earned (and he alone had merited) at the age of 6-8 and is Ender moral for pronouncing it at the beginning of EIE to be so? No freaking way.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't know how you could miss the fact that OSC spends all of the books rubbing the reader's nose in Ender's moral superiority? Graff, Valentine, etc. always insist that Ender is extremely good (and the reader is meant to believe it).
Well-- they DO have to trick him in order to get him to kill the Buggers. But it's also clear that despite his moral compass, Ender continually makes the choices that reflect PETER's style of warfare rather than Valentine's.
I mean-- the end of the Fantasy Game.
quote: The only thing abnormal about the environment Ender was in when confronted with Stilson was that he didn't have a monitor... which means it was just like any present day bullying situation. No exceptional circumstances. His third status isn't worse than any other pariah status anyone else has had, and I'm pretty certain when he reflects back on the Stilson fight when fighting Bonzo he knows that his life wasn't in danger during any earlier physical encounter (like it is with Bonzo).
I've provided examples and explanation for my interpretation. You've basically said "Nuh-uh."
I think I'd better be able to appreciate your interpretation if you backed it up with something in context.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The big thing with EIE is that it makes the continuity so that he looks back and doesn't take on any blame for what he did -- which is in direct contrast to Chapter 15 in the original Ender's Game, where he looks back on what he's done with shame and considers his acts crimes.
I interpretted Ender in Exile as portraying an Ender who is trying to convince himself that he had to do what he did, yet isn't able to do it. He tries to say what he did was justified, but I think there is clearly still part of him that believes he is a monster for doing it.
That's a fundamental part of Ender's character throughout the rest of the series. Every major great moral act that he does seems to be, in part, some attempt to convince himself he's a good person and to atone for what he did. And that's also why it made sense for him to split his auia in Children of the Mind - it made literal the split in his self-perception.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Good point, Tres.
Posted by Rainfox (Member # 12081) on :
quote:From a legal opinion source: It is a common belief that if you injure someone during the course of defending yourself that you are safe from prosecution. In reality, this is not the case. There is a fine line between self defense and assault and knowing where that line is could safe you a large fine and some serious jail time.
This fine line is called excessive force. During the course of defending yourself you cannot use force greater than what it takes to stop the attack. Where this line is drawn depends greatly on what state you are in, the type of attack, the victim and the attacker. There are so many variables that it often becomes hard to define what is self defense and what is a counter attack.
A safe general guideline would be only do what it takes to stop the attacker and get away from them. If you are at a nightclub and someone hits you, it is safest to walk away from the incident as opposed to hitting the person back. If the person follows you and continues to attack you, it then makes it necessary to hit back in order to stop the attacker. Often people think in this situation that if they are hit first and retaliate, they will legally be off the hook. Not so, at the very least you will both be charged with disorderly conduct.
The use of weapons is another very touchy matter. Again, you cannot use more force than what it takes to stop the attack, and the use of any deadly weapon is a crime unless you feel that your life is in imminent danger, and can prove that you thought beyond doubt that your life was in danger.
A woman is attacked by a man as she is walking down the street, in this case the woman may have reason to believe her life is in danger and the use of a weapon becomes more acceptable. Where a woman may be greatly overpowered by the size and strength of the man, the use of a weapon may be her only alternative to stop the attack. In the same situation, if she is attacked by a woman who does not have a weapon, and she uses a weapon, this becomes excessive force. In all probability the woman could have stopped the attack without the use of a weapon.
If someone is breaking into your home while you are in it, the use of a weapon becomes even more acceptable. The key is that it is reasonable to suspect that your life is in imminent danger if someone is breaking into your home in the middle of the night, or at anytime you are in occupancy.
If you drive up to your house and see someone breaking into your home, then the use of a weapon or any type of attack may land you in jail. In this instance, you can simply drive away and call police, because your person is not in danger, only your property.
So by legal measure, it would likely be manslaughter. But, he was only 6, felt utterly unprotected (remember, there were other boys there, too) and feared retribution. And he has anger issues, where frustration repeatedly seems to result in violence.
Although I think he could look back at the situation and see why he did what he did, it would be silly for someone in his situation to look back and not feel guilty for killing someone.
For military purposes, that particular trait (to annihilate what opposes you) is useful, and that's why they protected him.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
quote:I've provided examples and explanation for my interpretation. You've basically said "Nuh-uh."
That's not the case at all. I explained why your reason didn't provide an exceptional circumstance that justified homicide. Learn to follow the lines of reasoning in the argument and you can avoid making blatantly false characterizations of mine like this one, or gaining a false sense in pride when you step into an argument that's already many posts long and make a point that someone else has already made better than you have.
The situation is this: that in EIE when Ender looks back and said that Stilson is too blame for Stilson getting killed, it's BS. Ender is to blame for Stilson getting killed, even though the circumstances might have made it manslaughter under extreme emotional stress, and arguagbly Ender's thought process would make it a situation of murder, depending on how believable one finds it that he didn't know kicking someone repeatedly on the ground in the torso and head might kill them, and since it's a calculated decision after Stilson is already helpless on the ground not about moving an immediate threat.
I've already said a ton on this, bringing in evidence, and citing from the text. The damning things are Ender noticing that Stilson doesn't take a fight like this seriously, that the gang doesn't move to attack Ender but tries to figure out how hurt Stilson is, and that Ender decided to attack in order to stop attacks "tomorrow," not immediately. Scroll up and page back, I'm not going to waste my time quoting the same line of text three or four times in the same discussion.
As for military things -- <b>how many times do I have to tell you I'm not arguing about whether or not his actions would be justified in a context of war or in terms of making him a desirable tactical asset???</b> The point is, he was not at war with Stilson, he was a kid dealing with a bullying situation and killed someone.
Tres: That's the whole plot in the original four novels. Point to something in EIE that would give any indication that he felt he was actually to blame morally for killing Stilson, and not this BS sort of making a sacrifice by doing such a bad thing and now having to feel so bad about it even though it was the only thing he could have done pseudo-remorse.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
Meh, I need to cure this mentality I have.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Point to something in EIE that would give any indication that he felt he was actually to blame morally for killing Stilson, and not this BS sort of making a sacrifice by doing such a bad thing...
While Card doesn't usually make his protagonists into unreliable narrators, I did observe earlier that Ender's behavior with Achilles is pretty obviously sacrificial in nature.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
It's just an extension of his guilt in a pretty hokey fashion. What, now we have to see Ender emulate the way Novhina was with Marcão in Speaker for the Dead? And the way he throws out the percent chance of dying arbitrarily afterwards! Come on! Are you Andrew Wiggin or C3PO? Not to mention the point you raised with the Hive Queen depending on him...
OK, I'm gonna trade this thing for some credit at a used book store ASAP...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by kamp101: It's just an extension of his guilt in a pretty hokey fashion. What, now we have to see Ender emulate the way Novhina was with Marcão in Speaker for the Dead? And the way he throws out the percent chance of dying arbitrarily afterwards! Come on! Are you Andrew Wiggin or C3PO? Not to mention the point you raised with the Hive Queen depending on him...
OK, I'm gonna trade this thing for some credit at a used book store ASAP...
Good idea. You'll be less like this
It's just that book drove me up a tree. I got it out of the library and I'd pick it up at home and read passages of it and just literally scream.
I did the same thing with Eldest, but I never finished that book.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It was specifically this passage I was asking for examples:
quote:The only thing abnormal about the environment Ender was in when confronted with Stilson was that he didn't have a monitor... which means it was just like any present day bullying situation. No exceptional circumstances. His third status isn't worse than any other pariah status anyone else has had, and I'm pretty certain when he reflects back on the Stilson fight when fighting Bonzo he knows that his life wasn't in danger during any earlier physical encounter (like it is with Bonzo).
Have you read the other material OSC has written regarding population laws?
Being treated like a pariah is different than being bullied. There was nothing normal about Ender's situation; being a third was comparable, I think, to the early days of AIDS-- when kids who'd gotten the disease from an unsanitary needle-stick, or from a bad blood transfusion were shunned and feared.
That's why, when Valentine writes as Demosthenes, "The greatest title that a child can hope for is Third," it's so outrageous and inflammatory.
How do you justify your statement that Ender was being bullied the same way that any child in history has been bullied in light of this?
Understanding the amount of pressure Ender was under is key to understanding why he reacted as he did. It doesn't excuse it.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
I know the context in which thirds are treated in the book. I doubt it's worse than being black or Jewish in the wrong school in the south. I got singled out to be bullied as a kid because I have Tourette's syndrome. I didn't kill anyone. How many kids with AIDS killed anyone who shunned and feared them, or even -- doing what Ender MEANT to do, -- put them in the hopsital?
But if you agree with the statement <i>It doesn't excuse it. </i> -- then surely it's not a stretch to say that Ender was also (at least partially) if not mostly to blame for killing Stilson. Which he says he wasn't in EIE. Which is a pretty stupid and amoral statement for a character we've come to expect other things from.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I doubt it's worse than being black or Jewish in the wrong school in the south.
Why?
quote:surely it's not a stretch to say that Ender was also (at least partially) if not mostly to blame for killing Stilson.
Mmmm...that depends on what effect you want the blame to have.
Remember, Graff manufactured the situation.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
The situation's origin (Graff's manufacture) in no way negates the particulars (lack of immediate threat once Stilson was incapacitated and the gang was preoccupied with that + Ender's decision to brutally injure him, resulting in his death, whether intended or not). He's to blame for killing Stilson (even if you disagree with how much he is to blame, surely you agree he's at least partially to blame?)
I mean, it seems to me the Ender you're arguing for would have said something like "I'm partially to blame, yes, because the action that was taken had to do with my nature and a tactical decision I gave priority over moral concerns, but I was being bullied by Stilson and manipulated by Graff at the time."
Ender in EIE says that neither he nor Graff is to blame - just Stilson is.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:"I'm partially to blame, yes, because the action that was taken had to do with my nature and a tactical decision I gave priority over moral concerns
Again-- I'm not sure that moral concerns were at the top of Ender's mind at the moment. You stated previously that Ender was being portrayed as super-moral; and both Valentine and Graff thought he was a sweet kid. I think that the story proves that Ender fooled them both, and perhaps a number of readers, too.
Ender was convinced that Stilson and his gang were a real threat to him, both in the moment and for the forseeable future. He felt like he had no other choice; his experiences as a pariah were effective evidence. It wasn't moral; but it was, according to his logic, justifiable.
We can stand back and say that this was a terrible decision for a child to make; we can certainly hope and work to make a world in which no children make this same decision.
I'm sorry not to take your word about EIE; I've seen enough things taken out of context to mistrust what is written about what OSC writes. I'll have to read it for myself, I'm afraid.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
OK, now you're just talking crazy, and apparently I am going to have to copy and paste from my earlier posts in this same discussion that you could have read yourself because you're too lazy to find them yourself and yet still stubborn enough to keep repeating your irrelevant points. Look at the quotes from the text:
Ender's Game - after knocking Stilson on the ground, before deciding to seriously injure him (and actually killing him):
"It took Ender by surprise— he hadn’t thought to put Stilson on the ground with one kick. It didn’t occur to him that Stilson didn’t take a fight like this seriously, that he wasn’t ready for a truly desperate blow."
"For a moment, the others backed away and Stilson lay motionless. They were all wondering if he was dead. Ender, however, was trying to figure out a way to forestall vengeance. To keep them from taking him in a pack tomorrow."
That means that this statement from you:
Ender was convinced that Stilson and his gang were a real threat to him, both in the moment...
is not true. Stilson didn't take the fight seriously, his gang wasn't doing anything to take revenge on Ender, and Ender was concerned with a new fight breaking out tomorrow
He killed an opponent when he was defenseless and to avoid danger that wasn't immediate. It's in the text. Read it.
From EIE:
"I don't blame myself, you know..." "I'm responsible for killing Stilson and Bonzo and all the formics in the universe. But I'm not to blame."
Read it for yourself, I don't care, but if you don't think the novels try to hold up Ender as a super-moral guy, you're not in a position to be evaluating what's taken out of context or not.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
"Sweet kid" is abstract. "Sweet, innocent kid" (the original term in the argument) is less so, and I would agree that Andrew probably wasnt.
Andrew was morally reflective but still acted selfishly in many of the novels; he takes a huge risk with the way he interract the ribiera's. He determined that he could help but there was a liability that it could have made things worse. I've always thought there was concealed ambition to his actions, but still acted morally because he did think that his actions would be for the better.
And I think his feelings could have been a bit warped from all the stress he was under during battleschool. He could have concievavly thought that and then changed his mind (atleast to 50/50 reflection on his actions) after being able to settle down, spend time with Valentine and Jane, and become Speaker for the Dead. Ofcourse I havent read all of EinE, but I'm not sure you have either.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
It's not hard for a person to say one thing but deep down feel another way. I'm sure Ender can intelligently say its not his fault but when it come down to it he never believed it. If he did why would he have created Young Val and Peter? I'll quote Miro on this one
quote: Before they ever took him away from his parents, before he ever went up to that Battle School in the sky, before they made a perfect killing machine out of him, he was already the brutal, ruthless killer that he always feared he was. It's one of the things that even Ender tries to pretend isn't so: He killed a boy before he ever became a soldier. He kicked that boy's head in. Kicked him and kicked him and the kid never woke up. His parents never saw him alive again. The kid was a prick but he didn't deserve to die. Ender was a killer from the start. That's the thing that he can't live with. That's the reason he needs you. That's the reason he needs Peter. So he can take the ugly ruthless killer side of himself and put it all on Peter. And he can look at perfect you and say, 'See, that beautiful thing was inside me.
That's From Children of the Mind.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:That means that this statement from you:
Ender was convinced that Stilson and his gang were a real threat to him, both in the moment...
is not true. Stilson didn't take the fight seriously, his gang wasn't doing anything to take revenge on Ender, and Ender was concerned with a new fight breaking out tomorrow
He killed an opponent when he was defenseless and to avoid danger that wasn't immediate. It's in the text. Read it.
STILSON didn't take the fight seriously. ENDER didn't expect to take him down easily. ENDER didn't imagine that STILSON didn't take the fight seriously.
I don't see that anything in the text disagrees with what I've written. That you find a different interpretation in it is fine; I think your interpretation is wrong.
I'd appreciate a more civil tone, though.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Kamp:
I think I see where you might be getting confused about the argument I'm making:
quote:Ender was convinced that Stilson and his gang were a real threat to him, both in the moment and for the forseeable future.
"In the moment" here refers to the period of time between which Stilson confronts Ender, and when Ender disables him.
You are correct that Stilson and his gang are not immediate threats to Ender after Stilson is on the ground. I think we might have been starting from two different time periods-- I was looking at the whole scene, while you appear to have been considering the time from when Stilson was knocked down.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:if you don't think the novels try to hold up Ender as a super-moral guy, you're not in a position to be evaluating what's taken out of context or not.
The three novels following Ender's Game (Speaker, Xenocide, and Children) set Andrew up as a moral guy.
Ender's Game, not so much. He's shown as being brilliant and a bit neurotic; we have sympathy for him because he's this little kid thrust into a dangerous world, and he gets picked on unfairly, and he's sooooo tortured by the urge to be Peter...
I don't think we love him because he's moral, though.
In Ender's Game, can you show where he's depicted as the moral superman? I think that Val is the one who plays that role in EG...
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
What are you on about Scott?
quote:Ender was convinced that Stilson and his gang were a real threat to him, both in the moment and for the forseeable future. He felt like he had no other choice; his experiences as a pariah were effective evidence. It wasn't moral; but it was, according to his logic, justifiable.
This paragraph is referring to Ender's decision to kick Stilson's face in, which happens <b>in the moment</b> in which Stilson is on the ground. You can't pretend now that:
quote:"In the moment" here refers to the period of time between which Stilson confronts Ender, and when Ender disables him.
Because that makes no sense in the conversation we're having, which is about Ender's decision to kick a downed opponent in the face. I've already stated that kicking Stilson and knocking him down/out whatever, is fine. That's reasonable self defense.
Others: we can go around all day about how moral Ender is throughout the rest of the series. I think his morality or lack thereof is summed up by something Novinha says at the end of Speaker for the Dead. I don't have the book with me, but it's after he plants Human and has a reconciliation with Novinha and she says some line about him being like a surgeon's scalpel or something, I don't remember it exactly: it conveys the idea that he's the one who will do what is necessary even when what's necessary is an awful thing, but that it will have some good effect (if not the best effect) in the end.
The whole thing is that we're led to believe that Ender is a moral guy despite doing all these bad things because there's a good reason for the bad things he's done. My point is that someone who kills another kid when they're 6 and the kid is helpless on the ground and then rationalizes it as the other kid's fault is not a good person.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Yeah, I remember that Novinha line.
Posted by kmpatenaude (Member # 12093) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Uh, yeah, steel toed shoes is pretty much canon with the original book.
There's a line by Ender's mother than doesn't really make any sense unless you assume Ender's shoes are steel toed or possibly covered with knives.
Upon hearing that he kicked Stilson a couple extra times, she says something along the lines of...
"With your shoe, Ender, that wasn't exactly fair."
I'm not sure if any one has mentioned this yet, but in the comic, it looks as if Ender was wearing sandals of some sort during that first fight. I have never known sandals to be all that deadly.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
He didnt kick him in the first fight in the comic, except for the groin shot.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Kamp:
quote:This paragraph is referring to Ender's decision to kick Stilson's face in, which happens <b>in the moment</b> in which Stilson is on the ground. You can't pretend...
I don't have to pretend; and you don't get to make decisions about I mean my point to be.
You CAN argue that I'm being unclear, or illogical. I don't think I have been, though.
quote:My point is that someone who kills another kid when they're 6 and the kid is helpless on the ground and then rationalizes it as the other kid's fault is not a good person.
A lot can happen between the ages of 6 and adulthood. I think there are extenuating circumstances in Ender's case-- his environment, for one. I don't feel your interpretation of Ender's character takes those factors into account.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
Ok, enlighten me then. Why would you be talking about Ender's decision as if he had made it in a different context than the one in which he actually made it?
Your other point boils down to "it's complicated." Yes, I'm aware of that, the problem I have is not as much with EG as it stands, or EG within the context of the original four books, but EG with EIE's rewrites, when suddenly Ender doesn't reflect back on the things he has done as crimes and says all the blame is with Stilson.
As far as I can tell, you don't have any point to make, because you keep waffling about whether or not you're defending Ender morally, or not, by somehow arguing that he's not supposed to be a moral character and is in fact just a deadly killing machine and that I'm misreading the book, but despite saying that, you keep arguing with my characterization of his act as extremely immoral.
So, before I waste any more time on this, will you just answer in a simple yes or no fashion:
[1]Do you think Ender's deciding to kick Stilson repeatedly, (1a)knowing it would cause serious permanent injury at the very least, (1b)while Stilson was unable to defend himself, and (1c)while Stilson's gang was not making any attempt to hurt Ender after Stilson was knocked down--- is morally defensible?
Answer yes, no, or disagree with any of the premises contained and explain why you think my reading of the text in producing those premises is incorrect or not. Otherwise you have two choices:
(2) Outline your Third Rage defense for why it was OK for him to kill the guy.
or
(3) Dispute the fact that (3a)after every action in which Ender does something that seems vicious, we aren't bombarded both by Ender's own guilt and comments from other characters like this:
"I have no doubt of it. I'll be waiting for you to get here. I watched the vids of what he did to the other boy. This is not a sweet little kid you're bringing up here."
"That's where you're mistaken. He's even sweeter. But don't worry. We'll purge that in a hurry."
In which one character presents a pretty weak comment about Ender not being a good kid, and someone immediately counters and the counter is left undisputed (which, by the way, the context there is that Card wants you to think the character with the uncountered, final comment is correct).
... and 3(b) that this means we're supposed to think Ender is a good character throughout the book.
If you dispute (3), the rest of my argument is irrelevant to you, because you don't think Ender's a good guy. Well, good for you, but then you really have nothing to add here.
If you go either dispute (1) or (2), then there's a discussion to be had.
There's the point which is critical to me -- point (4) that in Ender's Game, (4a) he reflects back on the things he did as crimes, and (4b) the entire course of the series is a huge narrative that puts his aiua in Peter's body at just the appropriate point in time to stop two other pre-emptive (x)genocidal strikes on alien threats to humanity - the descolada by way of the piggies, and the makers of the descolada. However, in EIE (4a - fail) he blames Stilson alone for Stilson getting killed, and the new narrative (4b) is that the Buggers, er *cough* Formics set themselves up to get killed and Ender is a detective trying to figure out why.
It's even worse than that. In Ender in Exile, humanity isn't to blame for killing the buggers - pg. 305:
"We saved our lives, Ender."
"No," said Ender. "That's what we thought we were doing, and that's what we should be judged for -- but what we really did was slaughter a species that wanted desperately to make peace with us..."
To Tom: I'm disputing the reasonable point you've brought up, that in EiE Ender follows some trajectory of development from not acknowledging his wrongs to letting Achilles beat him up. Instead, the reasoning I disagree with is given logical carte blanche throughout the book - that force which goes way above and beyond the necessary level in order to remove any trace of any potential threat up to and including genocide and killing other 6 year olds is just fine and dandy, but isn't is sad that the choice was made with limited knowledge!
Even though we find out that part of Graff's big motivation was identical to Lebensraum (part of the Nazi agenda -- literally, "living space") --- humanity needed to wipe out the buggers so they could have a large share of colonies -- this motivation is revealed in the EiE, and Graff is not a super moral guy in the books, but he's portrayed sympathetically, like a good guy with some tragic flaws, certainly not a Nazi.
Not only this book horribly written in several parts, but its morality is off the scale low.
Scott: it doesn't make any sense for you even to talk about part (4) here, even though it's the most central point, because you haven't read the book, so kindly stop assuming my interpretation of the context is wrong when you don't even know what the context is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Instead, the reasoning I disagree with is given logical carte blanche throughout the book...
Oh, I know. But given that it's entirely possible to interpret the book my way, and my way makes it a more enjoyable read and is (IMO) more charitable to the author, I'll stick with my interpretation. Otherwise I'd just be letting the book make me unhappy.
Posted by JustAskIndiana (Member # 9268) on :
We've been through this so many times now, I feel like I'm feeding the troll.
1.) People have already mentioned that 1a is clearly false. He did not know he was doing any permanent or lethal damage. You can get kicked in the groin and still live. You can pop ribs and still live. It so happened he lacked training and was wearing steel toe shoes. If you have a believability issue here, then there's nothing we can do to help you.
2.) Nowhere does it say Ender is the personification of moral superiority. It so happens that most other characters in the novels hold him in deep respect and largely agree with the decisions he makes. This is because the other characters are mostly military as well and see that Ender made the best possible choice in the situations he had faced. Since most of these characters think this, you seem to reach the conclusion that the novels are saying Ender is the epitomy of morality, but this is not so. What Ender is supposed to be is a genuinely good person who has to make terrible choices that do haunt him. But what good person kills other 6 year olds, etc? Once again, upon reading the books you should have your answer, but you don't then there's nothing I can really say here.
3.) You clearly have a different definition of "blame" than I do. Here's the last example I will give for this: if someone is using an innocent civilian as a human shield and has a gun in a populated area, and I am a sniper who decides to take a shot then there is a risk I may also hit the civilian. If I do so, am I to blame for that civilian's death? Certainly I am responsible for that death, but am I to blame for it? If I could go back in time, would I choose a different course of action? Of course not! I would still take the shot, with the same risk involved because it's the best-indeed only-choice. Acting with limited information or risk then making the best decision and losing that gamble does not entitle you to blame.
So how is humanity to blame for events which happened as a result of an inability to communicate, understand, or reach any sort of peace with a completely aggressive enemy? If you think that complete destruction of the formic species is what pisses you off, then that's a completely different discussion - was the complete destruction of the buggers necessary under the only possible assumption that they wanted to destroy humanity?
4.) The idea that Graff's motivation is identical to Lebensraum is a troll joke. Lebensraum is "ok we need living space; let's go kill people inferior to us". Graff said "The buggers are dead, is it possible to use and explore their colony worlds to make sure our species never gets threatened like that again?" The fact that the human race has to spread in order to prevent that kind of threat was never the motivation of killing the buggers.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
1) EiE, pg. 113: Mazer Rackham: "I'm saying that he killed them and he knew what he was doing. Not the exact outcome, but that he was taking actions that could cause real and permanent damage to those boys."
Acknowledging that "Stilson was a petty bully."
And then on to say "I think Ender's actions were perfectly justified. He didn't choose to fight those boys, so the only choice he had was how thoroughly to win."
We're supposed to believe every word of this - Mazer is one of Orson's mouth pieces characters who never says anything that isn't perfectly reasoned out and true.
2) Pg. 284, Children of the Mind:
"You needed me to be like Ender," said Miro. "I needed you to be your own best self," said Jane. "I loved Ender, too, you know. I think of him as every man's best self."
paragon, n, 1. a model or pattern of excellence or of a particular excellence.
Geez, almost like an example of a "best" thing.
3) A hostage situation and using excessive force to protect yourself are hardly analogous, and gambling with the life of a disabled opponent is never a "best decision," that ends with "Oops, killed him - miscalculated!"
For the second part of that -- well, there are courses of action somewhere between pretending they're no longer a threat, and wiping them out completely.
4) EiE, pg. 112:
"I didn't go to Earth," said Graff, "I was busy turning Battle School into the assembly point for the colonists. No one understood why I insisted that all the beds be adult-sized. Now they talk about my foresight."
Continuing,
"So I was also in charge of the make-sure-Battle-School-is-fitted-out-for-the-Human-Genome-Dispersal-Project project." "And that's why you're losing weight," said Mazer, "Because you finally got the funding and authority to carry out the real project that you've had in mind all along."
Graff's motivation preceded the success of the Buggers, according to EiE.
The fact that the human race has to spread in order to prevent that kind of threat was never the motivation of killing the buggers.
Sorry, try again.
Once again, upon reading the books you should have your answer, but you don't then there's nothing I can really say here.
You obviously haven't read the same books, as you keep attempting to mock my lack of comprehension of them and point to it as the source of my issues. I am not playing around here to have a fun time as a troll on some random board of some random author because I read one war watch column and got annoyed.
I grew up with the original four novels and treasured them and re-read them constantly and internalized them, only to have OSC get older and embrace a militaristic stance so hostile and brutal that it would make Heinlein blush. I am finding these quotes from the original series without any of the books in front of me because I know them by heart. Jesus, just look at my member number.
Now, as a rational adult, I get to look around and wonder how much of OSC's poisonous mentality is in the original material, and therefore how much of that junk I let in and should purge myself of, so as to avoid any potential resemblance to the self-absorbed, bile-spewing jerk my favorite childhood author turned out to be.
Posted by lolcats (Member # 12060) on :
I think the point is that it's supposed to be harsh. That Ender is supposed to think differently from regular people, and make decisions that they would find morally upsetting-- which leads into the whole plotline of "Ender the Xenocide"-- when the same decision comes in: eliminate the enemy when he seems to be a threat (and risk discovering later that he really wasn't), or not? The point is that Stilson behaved in a way that made Ender think that Stilson was a threat to his life, so he responded. You can substitute "buggers" into that statement too. So the moral correctness of that is still debatable, but at least it's consistent with the rest of the books, it's not just this book.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
quote:The point is that Stilson behaved in a way that made Ender think that Stilson was a threat to his life, so he responded.
What, did you miss the part where Ender had already disabled Stilson and realized that Stilson wasn't actually taking the fight seriously before he thought he'd beat the hell out of him? You know, the part that's been quoted from the text twice now?
Posted by lolcats (Member # 12060) on :
I haven't read all of this discussion. Can you tell me this quote again? I'm under the impression that Ender at the time thought Stilson was still a threat, and would attack Ender again, if he didn't respond the way he did.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Kamp, you need to dial back your hostility a bit.
Posted by JustAskIndiana (Member # 9268) on :
I'll start with point 4, because it's obviously the most wrong. Everything you just quoted doesn't support your lebensruam idea. It's obvious the human race is going to have to go to other planets eventually; besides the fact that this planet won't last forever there's the asteroid that can wipe us all out, or in this case an alien species that wants to kill us. I don't care if Graff realized this when he was 3 or 30. We're using the word "motivation" in two different ways. When you say Graff's motivation preceded the success of the buggers, you mean he already wanted to spread out to different worlds, which is certainly true. However, the reason that humanity killed the buggers was not just so they could colonize those worlds - that would be lebensruam.
1.) First of all, you can't make claims like this: "Mazer is one of Orson's mouth pieces characters who never says anything that isn't perfectly reasoned out and true." Mazer Rackham is a character who has his own beliefs separate from OSC. There is only one person - the writer - who can make such a statement and he has, to the best of my knowledge, never done so. Nor does any character - Ender included - necessarily reflect on what OSC's beliefs are OR what he would have done in any similar situation.
Having said that, only the first quote you provided actually responds to what I said before. The others say that Stilson is a petty bully and that Mazer thinks Ender was justified. Both are true and interesting, but have nothing to do with Ender's motivations during the fight.
The first quote you took from Mazer is an interesting one; he says Ender didn't know what the exact outcome was going to be, but that it involved a risk that could result in permanent damage. I talk about this in point 3.
2.) I tell you that it's the characters in the story are the ones who hold Ender in such high respect and moral regard and you respond by....quoting those characters? Again, just because these characters seem to think Ender is a morally good person doesn't mean you have to. I don't think there's much more to debate here.
3.) The point is that the way in which we morally judge the situation is the same: in both situations - by the risk taken and the reasons for that risk rather than the outcome. If you think that "gambling with the life of a disabled opponent is never a "best decision,"" then once again, there's nothing left to debate here. You have your opinion, Ender has his, and OSC has his own. I'm just surprised that you could make that statement about anybody, at any time, for any scenario.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
Children of the Mind: pg. 337
Lands looked down at Peter and tears began to flow down his cheek. "Why did you give me a second chance?"
"Because that's what Ender always wanted," said Peter. "And maybe, by giving you a second chance, he'll get one, too."
... Chapter 16:
Peter looked around at all of them. "Don't you understand, any of you? There's only one species that we know of that has deliberately, consciously, knowingly tried to destroy another sentient species without any serious attempt at communication or warning. We're the ones. The first xenocide failed because the victims of the attack managed to conceal exactly one pregnant female. The second time it failed for a better reason-- because some members of the human species determined to stop it. Not just some, many. Congress. A big corporation. A philosopher on Divine Wind. A Samoan divine and his fellow believers on Pacifica. Wang-mu and I. Jane. And Admiral Lands's own officers and men, when they finally understood the situation. We're getting better, don't you see? But the fact remains-- we humans are the sentient species that has shown the most tendency to deliberately refuse to communicate with other species and instead destroy them utterly. Maybe the descoladores are varelse and maybe they're not. But I'm a lot more frightened at the thought that we are varelse. That's the cost of using the Little Doctor when it isn't needed and never will be, given the other tools in our kit. If we choose to use the M. D. Device, then we are not ramen. We can never be trusted. We are the species that would deserve to die for the safety of all other sentient life." ----
Why does OSC so badly want us to be "the species that would deserve to die for the safety of all other sentient life?"
How can you look at that shift and not feel hostile? And Scott - don't act like talking down to someone in smarmy manner is somehow better than calling BS when you see it. At least I have the decency to feel honest disgust at things that are morally reprehensible, instead of using condescending double speak to suggest others are incompetent. First remove the beam from your own eye...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm kind of with Kamp101 on this. Lately OSC has been taking over EVERY character, even villains sometimes and using them as a mouth piece for his point of view. It's only gotten worse in the last few years though. (He especially likes taking over Valentine, that's been apparent since Children of the Mind and possibly earlier) I can't blame Kamp101 for feeling cranky about EiE. I had the same feelings about it, but I never noticed the Ender saying kicking Stilson that way was justified until Kamp101 mentioned it.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
quote:I don't care if Graff realized this when he was 3 or 30. We're using the word "motivation" in two different ways. When you say Graff's motivation preceded the success of the buggers, you mean he already wanted to spread out to different worlds, which is certainly true. However, the reason that humanity killed the buggers was not just so they could colonize those worlds - that would be lebensruam.
What, just a side benefit they anticipated and were already prepared to take advantage of then? Come on.
quote:First of all, you can't make claims like this: "Mazer is one of Orson's mouth pieces characters who never says anything that isn't perfectly reasoned out and true." Mazer Rackham is a character who has his own beliefs separate from OSC. There is only one person - the writer - who can make such a statement and he has, to the best of my knowledge, never done so. Nor does any character - Ender included - necessarily reflect on what OSC's beliefs are OR what he would have done in any similar situation.
This just isn't true. It's really obvious when writers make certain characters their mouthpiece and then use them to preach at the reader. I'm going to quote Aris on this because he said it a lot better than I have:
quote:Signs of recognition: That the other guy doesn't offer any rebuttal but merely admires the imparted wisdom of the character. That the character goes into the generic life-lesson rather than the specific actions of the characters. "He chose. Just because he thought I was weaker than him, just because he thought I couldn't protect myself, doesn't mean it stopped being his fault."
Such a sentence seems specific on the surface but in reality it is RIDICULOUSLY abstract, meant to apply to nations and individuals alike.
If they'd stayed at the specific, instead of trying to impart a political diatribe, OSC and Ender would have realized that the sentence "he chose" is ridiculous when referring to a 6 year old "choosing" a battle to the death.
quote:The first quote you took from Mazer is an interesting one; he says Ender didn't know what the exact outcome was going to be, but that it involved a risk that could result in permanent damage. I talk about this in point 3.
To 3 with this.
quote:2.) I tell you that it's the characters in the story are the ones who hold Ender in such high respect and moral regard and you respond by....quoting those characters? Again, just because these characters seem to think Ender is a morally good person doesn't mean you have to. I don't think there's much more to debate here.
You aren't really this thick, right? You do know that sometimes characters say things to make points for authors, yes? You do know that sometimes characters are the sort of character who are almost always right? You can read when a character is providing a eulogy for another character who just died which basically sums up what the author wants us to think of that character?
These characters don't exist in a vacuum.
But when you write without deliberately expressing moral teachings, the morals that show up are the ones you actually live by. The beliefs that you don't even think to question, that you don't even notice-- those will show up. And that tells much more truth about what you believe than your deliberate moral machinations. -OSC
quote:3.) The point is that the way in which we morally judge the situation is the same: in both situations - by the risk taken and the reasons for that risk rather than the outcome. If you think that "gambling with the life of a disabled opponent is never a "best decision,"" then once again, there's nothing left to debate here. You have your opinion, Ender has his, and OSC has his own. I'm just surprised that you could make that statement about anybody, at any time, for any scenario.
3) Let's sum up some things:
You said:
People have already mentioned that 1a is clearly false. He did not know he was doing any permanent or lethal damage.
Then I brought up: "I'm saying that he killed them and he knew what he was doing. Not the exact outcome, but that he was taking actions that could cause real and permanent damage to those boys."
After complaining about my use of Mazer as an OSC mouth piece you still agreed that this is the situation. So you're original point, that he "didn't know he was doing permanent damage" was a dishonest way of saying "he didn't know he was doing permanent damage but he knew it was a possibility"
Gosh, I didn't know when I shot the guy he would die, but I knew it was a possibility! I'm not to blame!
That's just ridiculous, there's nothing more to say on point [3] if that's your position. You have a strange intepretation of intentionality as morality -- apparently unintelligent risk taking is OK as long as there's a remote chance involved the best result you want might happen.
What did Ender get out of beating Stilson senseless when he was already on the ground? Was it worth the risk of killing or permanently damaging him? No.
As for the "never" - give me an example other than this one where you think it would be just fine to risk killing a disabled, defenseless opponent with the damage you inflicted on them after they were already disabled and defenseless.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I'm not completely convinced that the situation after Andrew one shotted Stilson that he looked wholly safe. Yeah, his gang wasnt doing anything at the time; maybe they're friends well being was at the moment more important than Ender. I'm just saying that there's no reason to be absolutely certain that there wasnt an immediate, or atleast close coming threat, even if you're right. There was still a legitimate reason to be on edge, in my opinion.
Posted by JustAskIndiana (Member # 9268) on :
First let me just correct your sarcastic generalization of what I see is in Ender's mind:
quote:Gosh, I didn't know when I shot the guy he would die, but I knew it was a possibility! I'm not to blame!
becomes
quote:I didn't know when I hit the kid once in the breastbone, once in the ribs, and once in the crotch that he would die. I had intended to hurt him badly enough that he would never think about hurting me again, but I did not know I had killed him. I had thought that the risk of hurting him now, in a situation of some control, was less than the risk of whatever could happen in future fights.
Kamp, I'm going to provide you with a quote from Children of the Mind just before the one you provided above on pg. 337:
quote: "In his fight with two boys who threatened his life. He made sure they could never threaten him again. That's how war is fought, in case any of you have foolish ideas to the contrary. You don't fight with minimum force, you fight with maximum force at endurable cost. You don't just pink your enemy, you don't even bloody him, you destroy his capability to fight back. It's the strategy you use with diseases. You don't try to find a drug that kills ninety-nine percent of the bacteria or viruses. If you do that, all you've accomplished is to create a new drug-resistant strain. You have to kill a hundred percent."
Wang-mu tried to think of an argument against this. "Is disease really a valid analogy?"
"What is your analogy?" answered Peter. "A wrestling match? Fight to wear down your opponent's resistance? That's fine-- if your opponent is playing by the same rules. But if you stand there ready to wrestle and he pulls out a knife or a gun, what then? Or is it a tennis match? Keep score until your opponent sets off the bomb under your feet? There aren't any rules. In war."
A little while later in the same conversation we have:
quote: Peter smiled. "There are times when you have to defend yourself or someone else against relentless evil. And some of those times the only defense that has any hope of succeeding is a one-time use of brutal, devastating force. At such times good people act brutally."
"We couldn't be engaging in a bit of self-justification, could we?" said Quara. "You're Ender's successor. Therefore you find it convenient to believe that those boys Ender killed were the exceptions to your niceness rule."
"I justify Ender by his ignorance and helplessness. We aren't helpless. Starways Congress and the Lusitania Fleet were not helpless. And they chose to act before alleviating their ignorance."
"Ender chose to use the Little Doctor while he was ignorant."
"No, Quara. The adults who commanded him used it. They could have intercepted and blocked his decision. There was plenty of time for them to use the overrides. Ender thought he was playing a game. He thought that by using the Little Doctor in the simulation he would prove himself unreliable, disobedient, or even too brutal to trust with command. He was trying to get himself kicked out of Command School. That's all. He was doing the necessary thing to get them to stop torturing him. The adults were the ones who decided simply to unleash their most powerful weapon: Ender Wiggin. No more effort to talk with the buggers, to communicate. Not even at the end when they knew that Ender was going to destroy the buggers' home planet. They had decided to go for the kill no matter what. Like Admiral Lands. Like you, Quara."
This is going to be my last post in this thread, because I don't believe it is really going anywhere. Let me just say that the two posts above , at first, seem almost contradictory. They are not. First Peter says essentially what Kamp is so pissed off about in EiE. Then he says what Kamp loved about the old books. And yet these are coming from the same person, in the same conversation!
The real questions are: Did humanity do everything to communicate to the buggers before going to war? Peter seems to have thought not; Ender seems to have thought so. How far can one go to prevent future war? Where are the boundaries?
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
I'm done arguing with you - you're either just being dishonest in your attempts now, or completely failing to understand context -- look at what you left out that comes after the first part of what Peter says, you know, the part that pivots around:
quote:Wang-mu knew there was something wrong with this reasoning, but she couldn't lay her finger on it.
Which is followed by Peter's outlining how Quara has misread things. That means you read over that section and left out the part that disagrees with what the point you're trying to make, or didn't realize why it mattered.
When Peter goes off on the first point: "There aren't any rules in war," it's so he can pull out the rug and say "Well this isn't war, yet" - it's to show that humanity is all to quick to consider things to be in a state of war.
Just like you're applying a "state of war" viewpoint falsely to the situation with Stilson.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
Oh, and:
quote:I didn't know when I hit the kid once in the breastbone, once in the ribs, and once in the crotch that he would die. I had intended to hurt him badly enough that he would never think about hurting me again, but I did not know I had killed him. I had thought that the risk of hurting him now, in a situation of some control, was less than the risk of whatever could happen in future fights.
More selective editing from you:
quote:He kicked Stilson in the face. Blood from his nose spattered the ground.
Why did you leave out the face kick? Did you forget about it? Or did you realize that it pushes the risk of serious damage involved over a reasonable level?
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
Nobody is lying to you, Kamp. They've reached different conclusions about the same book. Once on author sends his writing out into the world, we readers are entitled to interpret it any way we like. Why don't you try having a conversation with Synesthesia? I'm sure everyone would be happier.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
There's something more than just a little suspicious when someone quotes two sections of text and leaves out a part in between them that invalidates what they had to say about it.
You are entitled to interpret whichever way you like, but there are only a limited set of interpretations which actually work. You have the right to be wrong -- that doesn't make it right, that just means you're settling for being wrong.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
I have a question for you kamp. If reading the books bring you so much displeasure why do you continue to read/buy them? You could have started the first Shadow book and when you realized you didn't like it stopped right there. Ignorance would be bliss to you. Instead here you are with your righteous anger. What do you expect to gain by all of this?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Wowbagger has a point. I wish I would have ignored the Shadow Series after Ender's Shadow, as Ender's Shadow was tolerable except for the fact that bean knew EVERYTHING about everything...
You're probably better off reading something else. I have to stop reading things that bug me because they give me stomach aches and flare up the old IBS. Better to read something entertaining, or at least Old Skool Orson, but I can't read Lost Boys again because it's so heartbreaking. It's a great book though.
But, maybe Kamp101 buys them and reads them in the hope that they will be really good. I find myself watching cruddy movies and television shows hoping the turn out good. But usually they do not.
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
Yeah, like how I watched Twilight the other day.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In fairness to kamp, I finished King's Dark Tower series even though I knew halfway through Song of Susannah that I wouldn't like the ending.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
Someone I knew had two copies bought for him and gave it to me for free.
I didn't think the Shadow series books were good, but they were a little bit fun in a sort of awful way and even though it reflected Card's obvious political biases, it followed up on characters in such a way that it didn't rape the original series quite so badly - the Bean retcon stuff was obvious, and the scenes which were from his point of view in EG which were repeated in ES were really, really painful, but it's not like having Ender rationalize killing a 6 year old.
I was expecting more in that line, knew some bad or hokey stuff would be likely, but wasn't expecting the book to mutilate Ender's character like it did, and involve an afterward where the author admitted he couldn't really remember much of the ending of Ender's Game and was just going to rewrite it anyways.
From the first couple of chapters, when it was obvious that Card forgot Valentine already told Ender that she and Peter were Demosthenes and Locke, and then the back and forth b/t Ender and Mazer w/r/t was like a kick in the face to my sense of the character.
I brought all this up to see what Hatrack was like these days -- to see how many people are buying this BS from Card -- and while I was pretty convinced EiE was just a horrible book and the morality presented within was reprehensible, I wanted to see the fleshed out arguments for or against it being a complete break in Ender's character, so I knew whether to just throwout it and the Shadow books, or the entire ensemble.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I brought all this up to see what Hatrack was like these days -- to see how many people are buying this BS from Card...
Why?
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
I don't know.
To identify those people use them to vent about how much the book sucked? I'm sure whatever my motivation is/was it isn't / wasn't healthy and I should probably bow out here pretty soon.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I like Ender's Shadow more than Ender's Game, partly because everything in Game was spoiled for me beforehand.
Posted by Objectivity (Member # 4553) on :
quote:Originally posted by kamp101:
quote:The point is that Stilson behaved in a way that made Ender think that Stilson was a threat to his life, so he responded.
What, did you miss the part where Ender had already disabled Stilson and realized that Stilson wasn't actually taking the fight seriously before he thought he'd beat the hell out of him? You know, the part that's been quoted from the text twice now?
Not to jump into the middle of a conversation with two people who are so entrenched in their thoughts that they're unwilling to change perspective for a moment, but...
From the quoted material, Ender wasn't worried about the fight at hand, but the fight that would come the next day and the day after and wanted to find a way to stop it so it would end for good. His goal wasn't to kill, but to do something against the rules of fighting that even a child his age knew (paraphrasing there).
That's why he kicked Stilson while Stilson was down.
Now, you can say that's morally wrong and that Ender didn't truly know what would happen the next day, but at some point we realize the sun will come up in the morning based on the evidence of the past. Ender knew beyond doubt that the scenario would repeat itself repeatedly. He chose to do something against the rules trying to break the cycle.
Bascially, your argument is that Ender should fight off his attacker and walk away. Then tomorrow do the exact same thing, etc. until Stilson gets bored and stops.
Nice thought, but doesn't reflect reality. A bully like that only gets more violent until put harshly in his place. Ender did the proper thing to end future violence.
There is always the chance that if Ender walked away Stilson would wake up the next morning and bake Ender cookies as a way of apologizing. A chance, but not one with a high probability.
To put it in a real world context. If police have evidence that you are going to kill someone, they're not going to wait until your victim is dead to take you into custody. Ender had evidence (as it were) that the attacked wouldn't end unless he did something to stop him and he did it, to a much further extreme than he expected or imagined.
Posted by lolcats (Member # 12060) on :
That's exactly what I think. Thank you for being so much more eloquent than me Posted by Brayden (Member # 11996) on :
Technically I think it is Graff's fault. If he hadn't made sure Ender's boots were steel-toed, Stilson wouldn't have died...
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I'm actually kind of glad I read this thread, because I now won't have to waste time reading the book.
Posted by Snake (Member # 12134) on :
About the trial, it implicitly states that the trial is for the adults, but aimed at damaging Ender. So he won't come back to Earth. I find KAMP funny since his taking Ender's actions as a premeditated attempt at taking life means that he considers Ender to be about 30 years old with about the same mental capacity. But Ender is six. Like the children in "Lord of the Flies" children are capable of being endlessly ruthless or endlessly compassionate. Ender is both, rolled into one. In his situation, he tried to give Stilson every opportunity to back off. That is his compassionate side. However, if someone so stupid as Stilson cannot take a hint and will try to use others to hurt Ender using sheer numbers, then the ruthless calculating side of Ender will be utilized. For Ender, in Stilson's case, this means dealing enough damage to the enemy that him and his cronies wont bother him anymore. To Ender, this is under the assumption that Battle School has either given up on him, or (i think this is the case) they are testing him, and to avoid Peter and to avoid Stilson, he needs that monitor back. He cannot lose. As mentioned several times throughout the book, he doesn't know that his maximum output of damage at a critical point will KILL Stilson. He's SIX. How much damage did you think you could do to ANYONE when you were six? For Bonzo, similiar circumstances in that Ender knows its another test. He knows that Bonzo can threaten his life, his brain etc. and has been saying he would for quite some time. Same conclusion. To Ender, of course he hated these games that Graff played to test Ender, but he correctly deduces that had Stilson or Bonzo not been so aggressively prejudiced and proud that they cannot stand the very existence of Ender, the tests would have been impossible in the first place.
Posted by Snake (Member # 12134) on :
Mazer's rebuttal in court was made to point out that the military was tasked with doing whatever it takes to preserve the survival of Earth, using whatever means available. They picked Ender the six year old because he was capable of thinking of breaking societal norms and taboos in order to achieve his goal since thats the kind of mind that will ensure our survival in a fight against an alien race. A child. A brilliant one, but a child nonetheless.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Eeeeerm, last I checked humans are encredibly frail individuals, children only more so, its amazing that we survived as a species considering how frail we are, we break things so easily its like someone stepped on a twig and we were the twig, kick someone in the head you risk severe tramae, probably caused a brain hemerrage, the kid may have had a pre existing condition (and thus no health insurance TakeThat US Healthcare) that makes him more suspeciptle to brain injuries that may have not been caught yet.
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)