|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Shofixti KYAAAAAIIIIEEEEE!!!!!! Victory? (Read 9071 times)
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
Not to sound like a filthy hippie, but "There are no winners in war, only losers."
That's what the losers say. The winners either say something along "Har har we've got your womenfolk and riches you weaklings" or "That's right! Run back to the hole you came from you filthy invaders, we kicked your asses good!" The losers, be they downtrodden and occupied or running for the hills are the ones who are going "Well you know actually, there are no winners in war".
Besides, clearly the 50 troops must have had the high ground, or were far better trained and/or equipped, in which case the agressor's forces may have performed much better than expected. After all, if the 200 had spears, and the 50 had assault rifles, then perhaps the 200 are the winners. They're still all dead, though.
You are changing the parameters of your example. There was no talk of weaponry or positions, just the question of whether the loss of life could accomplish something of greater value than the loss itself. I've given you several examples of when this can be the case. Protecting civilians and/or societeal integrity would probably be foremost among those. Your reply has mostly been "But they are all dead!" I'm not saying (other than in jest) that every time you have the possibility to get yourself killed you should do so. I'm saying that in some circumstances the price may well be worth paying.
Basically, you're standing inside a circle with 250 men watching them all die and drawing the conclusion that it amounted to nothing. I'm standing outside the circle observing what effect this had on a larger scale. Did the brave villagers protect their village from a marauding horde they had no chance of escaping? Did they trade the certain death of everyone in the village for their own certain death? Or did they just get themselves killed for the sake of some pointless religious argument? There's a world of difference.
Not in the slightest. Human beings seem to have what sometimes seems to be an overwhelming need and desire to throw their lives away. Good for you for helping make that dream a reality!
Because there are things more important than your own life. You'd make a terrible Shofixti 
A simpler way to do explain this might be to down the scale. You and your wife are walking down the street when an armed mugger jumps you. He has a big knife in hand, and yells "I'm going to kill you both deader than the dead guy who died too fast!" with a crazy meth gleam in his eyes. Then he charges your wife. You're a fairly trim guy so you know that if you want to, you'll be able to throw yourself between him and your wife. You also know that this'll only slow him down for a moment. Fortunately, being a kung fu movie buff you know how to twist someones neck right off. But in doing so you'll be letting down your guard and give him ample chance to stab you. So what do you do? 1) Let your wife die and run. 2) Throw yourself in front of your wife and die, but don't hurt the robber because then no one wins. He kills your wife 3 seconds later. 3) Kill the robber and die yourself, protecting your wife. Ignoring my ridiculous "just so" setup, I've been arguing that in general solution 3 can sometimes be a valid response. Because you may value some things much higher than your own life.
Well, one has to say that a moral victory really can't be declared if there's nobody left to gloat about it.
I don't think you need to declare a moral victory. And even if no one is left behind, that doesn't change the way things were.
Besides, moral high ground seems to be even, because both sides were wiped out fighting for the core tenets of their society: The Ilwrath were being undeniably evil by starting an unprovoked war for the sake of a better scrap, and the Thraddash were fighting someone (and being sneaky and underhanded about it to boot), which is pretty much their sole reason for existing save recounting old stories of how they did the same thing before. So it seems like a draw even in the moral theater.
This sounds pretty much like cultural relativity. Just because they are fighting according to their tenets doesn't mean we judge them according to that. We judge them according to our tenets, in which the Traddash were much better and claimed a moral victory.
Same here. Hooray for pointless debate and topic derailment!
Just you wait. I touched on absolute morality, which means Resh Aleph is going to come in here any minute and then we'll really be involved in a highly complicated quote war filled with unnecessary tunneling. But who cares, as long as we're having fun!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Son_of_Antares
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 306
Arioch, I summon thee...
|
None of your points seem completely valid to me because life itself never works in absolutes. But if I had to choose, I would be obliged to say that Luki now needs only 48 soldiers more for his Army of Zealots. I too value many things in my life much more than my own hide; as I see it there is no greater deed that one can do in it's life then to give his own life for something/someone that he loves (not for what he believes in, but loves). History tends to tells us the same thing - who can say that Spartans or the Japanese were wrong? I personally don't see any point in living the rest of your time knowing that you forfeited everything just to save your own @$$. Talking about bleak and pointless existence. 
So, in a tribute to that:
--- via commlink ---
Lord111:I see I was wrong to expect Shofixti's commitment to at least match our own.
Daikon: Doesn't it?
[points to Ur-Quan soldier behind Lord111]
Daikon: You there, what is your profession.
Lord345: I'm a scientist.
Daikon: And you, Ur-Quan, what is your profession?
Lord667: Bureaucrat, alien.
Daikon: Bureaucrat.
[turns to the third soldier on the comlink screen]
Daikon: You?
Lord533: Engineer.
Daikon: [turns back shouting] Shofixti! What is your profession?
Shofixti: KYAIIEE! KYAIIEEE! KYAIIEEE!
Daikon: [turning to Lord111] You see, old friend? I brought more soldiers than you did.
  
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 05:14:19 pm by Son_of_Antares »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
Not to sound like a filthy hippie, but "There are no winners in war, only losers."
That's what the losers say. The winners either say something along "Har har we've got your womenfolk and riches you weaklings" or "That's right! Run back to the hole you came from you filthy invaders, we kicked your asses good!" The losers, be they downtrodden and occupied or running for the hills are the ones who are going "Well you know actually, there are no winners in war".
In this case, since everyone is dead, they would actually say something more along the lines of "....." or perhaps, if the the circumstances were just so, "braaaains." But that's not really relevant.
Besides, clearly the 50 troops must have had the high ground, or were far better trained and/or equipped, in which case the agressor's forces may have performed much better than expected. After all, if the 200 had spears, and the 50 had assault rifles, then perhaps the 200 are the winners. They're still all dead, though. You are changing the parameters of your example. There was no talk of weaponry or positions, just the question of whether the loss of life could accomplish something of greater value than the loss itself. I've given you several examples of when this can be the case. Protecting civilians and/or societeal integrity would probably be foremost among those. Your reply has mostly been "But they are all dead!" I'm not saying (other than in jest) that every time you have the possibility to get yourself killed you should do so. I'm saying that in some circumstances the price may well be worth paying.
Well, now that's not fair to say. I'm simply extrapolating my example based on some of the known parameters of the original example (Shofixti vs. whatever, where the Shofixti's only real weapon involves self-sacrifice, and the Shofixti is valued less than whoever they happen to be fighting). You, on the other hand, are inferring the existence of an entire world affected by our battle of 50 vs. 200, which the original example (based on Super Melee, which exists in a vacuum that encompasses the orbit around exactly one planet that is so hostile to the combatants that every time they try to land on it, 1/3 of their crew spontaneously combusts) clearly omits. Therefore, I think we have to declare that either both of our changing parameters are valid, or none of them are (or perhaps, only mine are, since I made an airtight argument for them).
Basically, you're standing inside a circle with 250 men watching them all die and drawing the conclusion that it amounted to nothing. I'm standing outside the circle observing what effect this had on a larger scale. Did the brave villagers protect their village from a marauding horde they had no chance of escaping? Did they trade the certain death of everyone in the village for their own certain death? Or did they just get themselves killed for the sake of some pointless religious argument? There's a world of difference.
Nope, no difference at all. Since they're all dead, only the chroniclers are left to ponder their motives, which are quite likely to be inscrutable to anyone not directly involved. We can guess all we want, but we will never know the truth: that they were all being mind controlled by a mad scientist, in order to gauge our reactions to this scenario and cause us to argue. Don't play into his hands!
Not in the slightest. Human beings seem to have what sometimes seems to be an overwhelming need and desire to throw their lives away. Good for you for helping make that dream a reality!
Because there are things more important than your own life. You'd make a terrible Shofixti
I appreciate the compliment.
A simpler way to do explain this might be to down the scale. You and your wife are walking down the street when an armed mugger jumps you. He has a big knife in hand, and yells "I'm going to kill you both deader than the dead guy who died too fast!" with a crazy meth gleam in his eyes. Then he charges your wife. You're a fairly trim guy so you know that if you want to, you'll be able to throw yourself between him and your wife. You also know that this'll only slow him down for a moment. Fortunately, being a kung fu movie buff you know how to twist someones neck right off. But in doing so you'll be letting down your guard and give him ample chance to stab you. So what do you do? 1) Let your wife die and run. 2) Throw yourself in front of your wife and die, but don't hurt the robber because then no one wins. He kills your wife 3 seconds later. 3) Kill the robber and die yourself, protecting your wife. Ignoring my ridiculous "just so" setup, I've been arguing that in general solution 3 can sometimes be a valid response. Because you may value some things much higher than your own life.
Hey, I live in America. If all that sucker has is a knife, he's going to be deader than a doornail before he can finish his threat, since both my wife and I are carrying concealed assault rifles, as per the American way. Thanks, NRA!
In all (sort of) honesty, though, chances are good that the meth head is going to kill us both regardless of the scenario. Being hopped up on meth means he's quite likely going to have enough juice keeping him going even after he loses his head, in order to stab us both, as well as anyone attracted to the scene by the violence for a bit afterwards. Or, alternatively, he's really far down the spiral of addiction, and he's really not capable of doing serious damage to either of us, in which case he'll just get his head twisted off by my (apparently) mad kung-fu skillz.
Or is that PCP? Hmm...
Well, one has to say that a moral victory really can't be declared if there's nobody left to gloat about it.
I don't think you need to declare a moral victory. And even if no one is left behind, that doesn't change the way things were.
Sure you do. Otherwise the historians get to decide. Since both species were wiped out, those would be all the other aliens who both the Ilwarth and Thraddash pissed off with their constant attepmts to pick fights. So much for moral victories; both will simply be dismissed as terribly violent savages that wiped each other out in an orgy of genocidal and pointless violence. Likely that biased account would be met with much cheering and clapping of appendages. Fortunately, we are fortunate to have unbiased and impartial judges of history (AKA: us) to make this call. So make the right, unbiased, impartial call: agree with aliens and say nobody won.
Besides, moral high ground seems to be even, because both sides were wiped out fighting for the core tenets of their society: The Ilwrath were being undeniably evil by starting an unprovoked war for the sake of a better scrap, and the Thraddash were fighting someone (and being sneaky and underhanded about it to boot), which is pretty much their sole reason for existing save recounting old stories of how they did the same thing before. So it seems like a draw even in the moral theater. This sounds pretty much like cultural relativity. Just because they are fighting according to their tenets doesn't mean we judge them according to that. We judge them according to our tenets, in which the Traddash were much better and claimed a moral victory.
I don't know whose tenets those are, but they sure don't jive with the unbiased, impartial, and correct aliens above, who decided it was a draw.
Same here. Hooray for pointless debate and topic derailment!
Just you wait. I touched on absolute morality, which means Resh Aleph is going to come in here any minute and then we'll really be involved in a highly complicated quote war filled with unnecessary tunneling. But who cares, as long as we're having fun!
Hooray! More people to validate the existence of our mad debate would mke me even happier!
None of your points seem completly valid to me because life itself never works in absolutes. But if I had to choose, I would be obliged to say that Luki now needs only 48 soldiers more for his Army of Zealots.
Aw man. Nobody wants to join my army of 200. 
History tends to tells us the same thing - who can say that Spartans or the Japanese were wrong?
That would be the historians, who were not coincidentally from cultures opposed to the ones you mentioned. Then again, in the case of the Japanese, it would be the Japanese who say they were wrong at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
In this case, since everyone is dead, they would actually say something more along the lines of "....." or perhaps, if the the circumstances were just so, "braaaains." But that's not really relevant.
Heh, fair enough. The armchair generals in your original example then.
Well, now that's not fair to say. I'm simply extrapolating my example based on some of the known parameters of the original example (Shofixti vs. whatever, where the Shofixti's only real weapon involves self-sacrifice, and the Shofixti is valued less than whoever they happen to be fighting). You, on the other hand, are inferring the existence of an entire world affected by our battle of 50 vs. 200, which the original example (based on Super Melee, which exists in a vacuum that encompasses the orbit around exactly one planet that is so hostile to the combatants that every time they try to land on it, 1/3 of their crew spontaneously combusts) clearly omits. Therefore, I think we have to declare that either both of our changing parameters are valid, or none of them are (or perhaps, only mine are, since I made an airtight argument for them).
I'm not saying your parameters are invalid, I'm simply remarking that you've shifted them without any clear reason. Your original example provided not only 250 men, but also armchair generals who could congratulate themselves. Therefore, as you say, it is quite logical to extrapolate any number of circumstances. After all, you've established outside observers. That infers more action outside of the battlefield than we can see. Your parameters are valid, but your train of thought inconsequential here. I've already stated that I'm not arguing that every single time this situation arises it's the right thing to do, only that there may be circumstances where this is the preferable course of action. If I was arguing that killing the sods off every time was the correct thing to do (except in jest), you'd have completely disproved me. But since all I'm arguing is that there may be situations where this is the preferable course of action. And I daresay that for any events you extrapolate, I can find a opposite.
Nope, no difference at all. Since they're all dead, only the chroniclers are left to ponder their motives, which are quite likely to be inscrutable to anyone not directly involved. We can guess all we want, but we will never know the truth: that they were all being mind controlled by a mad scientist, in order to gauge our reactions to this scenario and cause us to argue. Don't play into his hands!
As we've established, it is quite valid to extrapolate. Thus, there may well be circumstances that matter. Both to those dying and those observing.
I appreciate the compliment.
You're welcome. cough*Spathi*cough
Hey, I live in America. If all that sucker has is a knife, he's going to be deader than a doornail before he can finish his threat, since both my wife and I are carrying concealed assault rifles, as per the American way. Thanks, NRA!
In all (sort of) honesty, though, chances are good that the meth head is going to kill us both regardless of the scenario. Being hopped up on meth means he's quite likely going to have enough juice keeping him going even after he loses his head, in order to stab us both, as well as anyone attracted to the scene by the violence for a bit afterwards. Or, alternatively, he's really far down the spiral of addiction, and he's really not capable of doing serious damage to either of us, in which case he'll just get his head twisted off by my (apparently) mad kung-fu skillz.
Or is that PCP? Hmm...
You are arguing the details of the example rather than the thought behind it. Also, snapping someone's neck pretty much ensures that they won't be moving afterwards. Think up similar scenario where you have to take a bullet for your wife and have the choice of firing one while doing so or not. Oh, and your wife forgot her gun at home.
Sure you do. Otherwise the historians get to decide. Since both species were wiped out, those would be all the other aliens who both the Ilwarth and Thraddash pissed off with their constant attepmts to pick fights. So much for moral victories; both will simply be dismissed as terribly violent savages that wiped each other out in an orgy of genocidal and pointless violence. Likely that biased account would be met with much cheering and clapping of appendages. Fortunately, we are fortunate to have unbiased and impartial judges of history (AKA: us) to make this call. So make the right, unbiased, impartial call: agree with aliens and say nobody won.
Does it really matter to them what inferior historians from snivelling races think? While we can judge them according to our system, they won't care much unless we can persuade them to.
I don't know whose tenets those are, but they sure don't jive with the unbiased, impartial, and correct aliens above, who decided it was a draw.
Wait, I'm confused. What are you talking about?
Hooray! More people to validate the existence of our mad debate would mke me even happier!
This might still become very beautiful.
Aw man. Nobody wants to join my army of 200.
I think that morally you are an army of 200
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
No, he is not my enemy - he is just something which is likely to kill me (and this hypothetical 'wife'). Googling a quick definition fo the words comes up with these meanings: # an opposing military force; "the enemy attacked at dawn"
# an armed adversary (especially a member of an opposing military force); "a soldier must be prepared to kill his enemies"
# any hostile group of people; "he viewed lawyers as the real enemy"
# foe: a personal enemy; "they had been political foes for years" While this is a matter of interpretation, I'd say that the mugger is an armed adversary. Compare: a tornado suddenly appears as my wife and I are walking down the street. If it kills us both, it is not 'victorious', and if I manage to die while saving my wife, I have not somehow 'defeated' the tornado. True, but a tornado is a force of nature, not an intelligent being. So they really aren't the same. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
In this case, since everyone is dead, they would actually say something more along the lines of "....." or perhaps, if the the circumstances were just so, "braaaains." But that's not really relevant.
Heh, fair enough. The armchair generals in your original example then.
Those were provided merely for the sake of saying that only the most callous and distant observers of a battle would think of declaring a victor. Really, those armchair generals are stand-ins for us, who are having this debate.
Well, now that's not fair to say. I'm simply extrapolating my example based on some of the known parameters of the original example (Shofixti vs. whatever, where the Shofixti's only real weapon involves self-sacrifice, and the Shofixti is valued less than whoever they happen to be fighting). You, on the other hand, are inferring the existence of an entire world affected by our battle of 50 vs. 200, which the original example (based on Super Melee, which exists in a vacuum that encompasses the orbit around exactly one planet that is so hostile to the combatants that every time they try to land on it, 1/3 of their crew spontaneously combusts) clearly omits. Therefore, I think we have to declare that either both of our changing parameters are valid, or none of them are (or perhaps, only mine are, since I made an airtight argument for them).
I'm not saying your parameters are invalid, I'm simply remarking that you've shifted them without any clear reason. Your original example provided not only 250 men, but also armchair generals who could congratulate themselves. Therefore, as you say, it is quite logical to extrapolate any number of circumstances. After all, you've established outside observers. That infers more action outside of the battlefield than we can see. Your parameters are valid, but your train of thought inconsequential here. I've already stated that I'm not arguing that every single time this situation arises it's the right thing to do, only that there may be circumstances where this is the preferable course of action. If I was arguing that killing the sods off every time was the correct thing to do (except in jest), you'd have completely disproved me. But since all I'm arguing is that there may be situations where this is the preferable course of action. And I daresay that for any events you extrapolate, I can find a opposite.
Since when has "reason" been involved here?
Seriously, though, the whole intent was to show that this scenario, taking place in a vacuum like Super Melee, ends with no victor. Besides, if there were no observers, could we even prove that a battle took place?
Nope, no difference at all. Since they're all dead, only the chroniclers are left to ponder their motives, which are quite likely to be inscrutable to anyone not directly involved. We can guess all we want, but we will never know the truth: that they were all being mind controlled by a mad scientist, in order to gauge our reactions to this scenario and cause us to argue. Don't play into his hands!
As we've established, it is quite valid to extrapolate. Thus, there may well be circumstances that matter. Both to those dying and those observing.
MAD SCIENTIST! MAD SCIENTIST! Get your tinfoil hat before it's too late!
I appreciate the compliment.
You're welcome. cough*Spathi*cough
Dear God, please don't let me die today. Tomorrow would be so much better.
Also please keep me and my wife away from armed muggers and lopsided battles.
Hey, I live in America. If all that sucker has is a knife, he's going to be deader than a doornail before he can finish his threat, since both my wife and I are carrying concealed assault rifles, as per the American way. Thanks, NRA!
In all (sort of) honesty, though, chances are good that the meth head is going to kill us both regardless of the scenario. Being hopped up on meth means he's quite likely going to have enough juice keeping him going even after he loses his head, in order to stab us both, as well as anyone attracted to the scene by the violence for a bit afterwards. Or, alternatively, he's really far down the spiral of addiction, and he's really not capable of doing serious damage to either of us, in which case he'll just get his head twisted off by my (apparently) mad kung-fu skillz.
Or is that PCP? Hmm...
You are arguing the details of the example rather than the thought behind it. Also, snapping someone's neck pretty much ensures that they won't be moving afterwards. Think up similar scenario where you have to take a bullet for your wife and have the choice of firing one while doing so or not. Oh, and your wife forgot her gun at home.
Ever see a chicken run around headless after a trip to the chopping block? It's the same sort of thing... Though it may not apply to humans quite as readily.
Besides, as EP said, it's a bad example. Not least of all because the scenario described does not involve the death of all participants, which means it's no longer analogous to the original example. Even if you could consider this scenario a "battle," there is no question who the victor is: the hypothetical wife who is still alive. That's like argiung whether or not the original scenario is a win or tie for the Shofixti player while he still has another ship in reserve.
Sure you do. Otherwise the historians get to decide. Since both species were wiped out, those would be all the other aliens who both the Ilwarth and Thraddash pissed off with their constant attepmts to pick fights. So much for moral victories; both will simply be dismissed as terribly violent savages that wiped each other out in an orgy of genocidal and pointless violence. Likely that biased account would be met with much cheering and clapping of appendages. Fortunately, we are fortunate to have unbiased and impartial judges of history (AKA: us) to make this call. So make the right, unbiased, impartial call: agree with aliens and say nobody won.
Does it really matter to them what inferior historians from snivelling races think? While we can judge them according to our system, they won't care much unless we can persuade them to.
History is written by the winners, or in this case, the survivors. Since both Ilwarth and Thraddash are dead, that leaves only outside aliens to decide. Besides, the participants probably won't much care who is doing the judging, seeing as how they're all dead.
I don't know whose tenets those are, but they sure don't jive with the unbiased, impartial, and correct aliens above, who decided it was a draw.
Wait, I'm confused. What are you talking about?
Why, the alien judges of history regarding the Ilwrath - Thraddas war, of course. You know, the ones that declared them savages who blasted each other into mutual extinction, resulting in a genocidal draw?
Hooray! More people to validate the existence of our mad debate would mke me even happier!
This might still become very beautiful.
It already is beautiful, and can only become moreso. There is nothing like watching a tangent gracefully extend, then branch chaotically in all directions, consuming the original shape.
Ah, the wonders of nature.
Aw man. Nobody wants to join my army of 200. I think that morally you are an army of 200
Unfortunately, I am physically but one, and the requisite armchair general observer to boot. So, you may now consider this a recruitment drive. Join the army of 200!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Terrell
Frungy champion
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 75
|
Since neither side survived, both sides lose.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
Those were provided merely for the sake of saying that only the most callous and distant observers of a battle would think of declaring a victor. Really, those armchair generals are stand-ins for us, who are having this debate.
To me the phrase armchair general implicates someone who is actually commanding those forces from afar. But even distant observers implicate that there will be someone around after the battle.
Seriously, though, the whole intent was to show that this scenario, taking place in a vacuum like Super Melee, ends with no victor. Besides, if there were no observers, could we even prove that a battle took place?
In that case I've clearly misunderstood you. Since you started talking about soldiers and commanding officers, I thought you were making a general point about warfare, i.e that in a battle where both sides are wiped out there are no winners. That's what I took issue with, giving examples of situations where sacrifice might be worthwhile. You even replied to that making some general points about WWI which seemed to indicate that my understanding of your example was correct, i.e that we were talking about an actual situation.
But now it seems you were making a specific observation along the lines of:
"If the entire universe consists of only 250 men and all else is void and no observers or outside forces exist, neither force can claim victory if both are wiped out. And only people who do not exist in that universe but rather hover in their own small adjoining universes that are in no way affected by this battle at all can claim that to be a victory. How these people manage to observe a neighbouring universe and why they do so when it has no affect on them is not important for this example. Why they would declare anything victory or defeat in that adjoining but not connected universe is also not known but they just do so."
If so then fair enough, you are of course correct. The only possible argument in this situation is that it puts those poor sods out of their misery, doomed as they are to live in nothingness. That's a pretty horrible fate in itself. That wasn't what I inferred from your example though. And when you started arguing specifics I assumed that my, er, assumption, was correct.
MAD SCIENTIST! MAD SCIENTIST! Get your tinfoil hat before it's too late!
No thanks, I'll leave the tinfoil to those who need it. You look dashing.
Also please keep me and my wife away from armed muggers and lopsided battles.
Or at least have the muggers exist in their own separate universes which can be observed but don't really affect you?
Ever see a chicken run around headless after a trip to the chopping block? It's the same sort of thing... Though it may not apply to humans quite as readily.
That's an interesting point. But I'd say that has more to do with random impulses on the bodies side than any coherent thought. If that were the case, I'd assume they'd not run around but rather try to kick the bastard who cut their head off.
Besides, as EP said, it's a bad example. Not least of all because the scenario described does not involve the death of all participants, which means it's no longer analogous to the original example. Even if you could consider this scenario a "battle," there is no question who the victor is: the hypothetical wife who is still alive. That's like argiung whether or not the original scenario is a win or tie for the Shofixti player while he still has another ship in reserve.
Keep in mind that you're agreeing with someone who thinks that a tornado and a thug has the same level of intelligence. That's an interesting view of the world, but not one I feel inclined to argue about. Regarding the example, it's not bad. You're just staring at the trees so hard that you can't see the forest. Draw a circle around yourself and the mugger. That's your 250 soldiers duking it out. Look outside the circle at your wife and the rest of the world. That's where all those observers and armchair generals that are affected by the outcome of a battle usually hang out.
But since we've established that you were apparently making a fairly odd soldier analogy to supermelee rather than talking about actual soldiering, you are of course correct. Now that I see what you're trying to bring forth, your wife and the rest of the world would have to live in another universe to make this work. To be honest, it also makes your example kind of weird.Tthe only such situations we are ever likely to encounter appear in other video games, so you made some sort of simile between an actual videogame and the exact same situation in another theoretical videogame. That doesn't really negate any of the discussion you were responding to, it's still just a matter of how you define victory in the game.
History is written by the winners, or in this case, the survivors. Since both Ilwarth and Thraddash are dead, that leaves only outside aliens to decide. Besides, the participants probably won't much care who is doing the judging, seeing as how they're all dead.
Except I haven't been arguing about who is writing SC universe history, or human history for that matter. I've been arguing who scores a moral victory from my perspective. The Traddash and Ilwrath won't care about whoever comes after them, since they are dead. And even if some survived (which is not entirely unlikely, given that at least the Ilwrath serve aboard Ur-Quan ships), they still wouldn't care. The only ones who care about what historians say, are those who subscribe to the same worldview. And in the long run, history really isn't an absolute. 1000 years forward the event might be recalled as the "Henious Human Trick"
Why, the alien judges of history regarding the Ilwrath - Thraddas war, of course. You know, the ones that declared them savages who blasted each other into mutual extinction, resulting in a genocidal draw?
I don't know what history books you've been reading, but mine all say the filthy humans continued their onsalught on the peaceful Hierarchy races. Some of them also mention the old corrupt historians from that age, and their shameful attempts to explain away unwarranted genocide and theft.
It already is beautiful, and can only become moreso. There is nothing like watching a tangent gracefully extend, then branch chaotically in all directions, consuming the original shape.
Ah, the wonders of nature.
Sometimes, very rarely you get to see a great ending as well. First you branch out and people join the argument. Then slowly, the branches close off, one by one until nothing remain. Like a beatiful tree of words blooming and then dying as winter comes.
Unfortunately, I am physically but one, and the requisite armchair general observer to boot. So, you may now consider this a recruitment drive. Join the army of 200!
My army of 50 lives in a world with people they love and things to defend. Your army of 200 apparently lives in a small pocket universe where nothing matters (or even exists!) and they eagerly await enemies to prove the futility of their existence. I think suicides might become an issue in your army.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 11:05:04 am by Lukipela »
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
|
|
|
|
|
