Because slaughtering your guests after promising them safety is totally the same thing as killing a king who instigated a yet-to-be-concluded conflict against your nation a few years ago who also refused to surrender against overwhelming odds and during a battle.
5 Likes
The reasoning the Alliance had to attack Rastakhan, wasnât about the actions he did in the past.
They attacked him for the same reason Tywin deemed necessary to kill the starks at the wedding; to prevent the war from prolonging itself by striking preemptively at an unsuspecting potential threat. And kill a few, to prevent the deaths of many.
They both even had the same reasoning of waiting for an occasion, or forcing the situation to the point, where their objectives were as demilitarised as possible.
The difference being, and this is not a small one, Jaina explicitly tried to avoid civilian casualties, whereas the Red Wedding devolved into a bloodshed without Tywin caring.
Having a dejavĂș here, but one could argue that Jaina didnât care much about Zandalari civilians when she had her troops invading with Molten Giants, fire elementals, soldiers, and a deranged giant gorilla, a merchant district of the city that she had taken care to demilitarise forehand. I mean, I think you can actually see those merchants fighting for their lives in the raid.
Anyway, this whole thing about ânot caring about civiliansâ seems rather speculative.
I mean, one could argue that the ones that were killed at the Red Wedding were mostly chieftains and commanders of Robbs army.
But all that seems rather irrelevant.
Point being, that in both cases the reasoning seems rather mirrored.
Pretty much 3000 troops were killed at the Red Wedding, many of which in horrible ways. Tywin did not care. His only reply was âGood. Let them remember what happens when they march on the southâ. Earlier he ordered the sack of Kingâs Landing, in which countless civilians were butchered.
In comparison, Jaina ordered the siege of Dazarâalor but attempted to minimize civilians, which becomes quite hard when you put former slavers in your army.
I seriously donât know how you can argue the two events are even comparable. Letâs stop the off-topic here. Weâve derailed enough.
I donât think that statement reinforces an idea about him not caring about civilians.
I mean, he most probably didnât, but as you said he was talking about troops there. Robs army. Soldiers.
The example of kings landing sacking is irrelevant to the argument at hand about the specific reasoning surrounding the Red Wedding. Iâm calling for the comparison of that specific case, not the stuff that happened prior, as it had no bearing over the motives or reasoning of the situation with Rob.
And what does that decision of putting said âformer slaversâ in charge of the invasion force say about the concern you have for civilians during said raid?
But again, this seems like a tangent. I agree to leave it here.
Yes. In the end this entire argument you started when you mentioned baby Hitler failed spectacularly in giving reasons as to why Sylvanas is not evil.
2 Likes
Firstly, I didnât start it.
Secondly, I donât think it failedâŠbecause I never bothered arguing about Sylvanas character as a whole and instead focused against a specific claim that stated some act could categorically by labelled in one way or another regardless of circumstance.
I even agreed that I too feel that what happened with Teldrassil was an evil act.
And thirdly, Iâm willing to let the GoT derailment be. Thatâs it.
For as long as someone wants to argue further about WoW related stuff, I maybe will or not, push the matter further.
But if you want to end our particular exchange, fine by me.
Considering how your Hitler example was stupid and inappropriate. No. Find some better examples or just donât. Now if youâre done arguing for child murder, we can move on.
3 Likes
It must be fun building that completely new person to throw insults at while ignoring whatâs actually being said.
But hey, whatever floats your way.
Bruh. You literally started this entire argument here. With weird comparison and offsetting morality arguments.
2 Likes
No, I didnât. I said this:
While replying to this:
I didnât âstart itâ because it was an ongoing argument that had gone on for quite some time.
And I donât think I was being unreasonable when pointing such.
Now, if someone wants to argue about the âkill babiesâ bit, I still donât know who is he talking about when referring to an apologist âfor child murderâ.
I mean, after continuing with the line of debate that was already in place this is what I saidâŠ;
How the argument grasps at stuff Iâve clarified already that I didnât mean or say, seems like a way of trying to get a hold on something to throw back.
The point was rather simple.
But guess that itâs easier to try and argue against a strawman that spouts the convenient awful stuff that is easy to counter, than to tackle or even agree with the real arguments that are being made.
Edit: Even with the âbaby Hitlerâ stuff I clarified the point made:
Apart from the fact that this thread has degenerated in a very ugly way, this one totally made my day:
My oh my, seems I had you all wrong 
2 Likes
So you would mercilessly stab a baby who technically did nothing wrong and shouldnât be doomed just because a future version of him committed atrocities. Good to know what kind of person you are. While weâre at it, why not just go back in time even further and exterminate his ancestors so that the baby is never born in the first place?
Can we be sure that Hitler donât saved the world if he killed so many people 
What is if he killed a ancestor of someone who would be even worse!
This reminds me of Terenasâs grandfather being responsible for Arthas, because he raised Terenas poorly. Good times, better debates.
1 Like
Oh my God, you just reminded me of Sorceress. I remember how he used to blame Terenas for the Burning of Teldrassil. I wonder where heâs gone.
1 Like
This thread, went offtracks long ago.
The latest derailment however, steams from bringing forth the question about whether every act, regardless of context, can be categorised as either evil or good. My opinion, is that its hard to do so.
Must say that i had the misfortune of bringing the Baby Hitler question (a more âmodernâ adaptation of the Trolley dilemma), to explain why judging any action solely for the act of doing such, might not always be the right route.
Kinda came to mind when i read that âAnyone that does something evil must be evilâ and the âStabbing babiesâ part.
It was very strange to see how that translated in some peopleâs mind into âOmg, you are arguing for children killingsâ.
Wonder about the dilemma itself, doesnât mean that the one doing so is an apologist for child murder and whatnot. Iâm certainly not.
I mean, its not as if it hasnât been a staple reference to probe at RL society behaviour (with varying results):
https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/offbeat/the-philosophical-problem-of-killing-baby-hitler-explained/ar-BBSv2D0
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/killing-baby-hitler-ethics/412273/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetstemwedel/2015/10/24/why-its-unethical-to-go-back-in-time-and-kill-baby-hitler/#543de611699b
Or even inspired âmemesâ and easter eggs in movies that involve time-travel:
And other similar ânodsâ such as the one with baby Thanos in Avengers Endgame:
But yes, the point i tried to make has been twisted beyond recognition when in fact it was a pretty simple one:
There are quite a few occasions when the act on its own is insufficient to judge whether an action is unequivocally evil or not. And said line gets very blurred during war times.
And regarding Sylvanas, yes, Teldrassil was evil.
1 Like
Remind me when I said that? Even if I did, I already clarified later that someone doing an evil act can have his reasons for that, which makes him less evil and more gray, we could say. But still evil, obviously. Thanos exterminated half the universe. Did he have his reasons? Yes. Does that make him less evil than someone like Deathwing? Yes. Is he not evil? No, because he still destroyed billions of innocents.
What I did say, is that anyone who does genocide is evil. Because if you think thatâs the only way forward, youâre mentally ill and need to be put down.
âStabbing babiesâ
If you stab a baby, you did an evil thing. Itâs simple.
Also, note how in that video of Deadpool two of the most liked -serious- comments are âHe couldâve just help him pass his art school smhâ and âor just maybe kill his daddy. Hitlers dad pretty much beat him often so yeah try to do thatâ. Itâs almost like people are not born evil but shaped into being evil by the circumstances they are in.
Stop talking about babies, for the love of god! Is it too much to ask?!
2 Likes