«You call for peace when it suits you»

[Steampunkette]

I would argue that you still base your view of personhood on anthropomorphism because you don't really have a choice at the end of the day, and have overlaid that with abstracted reasoning that makes you feel better about your own human limitation - but on the same token, my own views are just my own theory of how it works as I have no idea how anyone else aside from myself actually thinks. "Personhood" isn't an axiomatic principle of the universe in any sense, so there isn't a stable "singular principle" on which it could be based - both us can only speculate from our own isolated perspectives. The actual truth of it could be something neither one of us could ever grasp.

Insects, however, are capable of learning and can apply abstract (albeit still simplistic) forms of thought - we still don't think of them as sapient, but they can still learn via habituation as well as classical conditioning. They are essentially intelligent, though we have no idea if they are self-aware (we actually have no idea if anything aside from ourselves are self-aware). Studies have found even the exceedingly biologically simplistic fruit fly can actually be influenced by operant conditioning.

I'm aware of my limitations as a human animal, but I do not think Anthropomorphization of nonhumans is a forced part of that. I did not suggest that my definition of personhood was based on a fundamental facet of reality, an Objective Truth to which all things must adhere. But as a foundational Principle which applies to all entities for -my- subjective definition of Personhood.

You seem to be misunderstanding the difference between the two. I was suggesting that your criteria for personhood are too flexible and malleable. That "These traits are required for personhood, except when something is clearly a person but does not possess these traits". Mine is a principle, in that it doesn't have caveats. Once an entity is shown to have sapience (Awareness of self, awareness of reality, and ability not only to learn but to engage in abstract thought or reasoning) that's it. Boom. It's a person. Doesn't matter if it's an octopus or a computer program or a 4th dimensional baleen whale intersecting with our reality on only three of it's axes in passing.

Not an axiomatic function of reality principle. But a foundational statement of philosophical understanding principle.

And yes. There are insects which can be taught to engage in certain behavior, but not shown abstract reasoning. SOME have shown abstract reasoning (In the case of Ants, -complex- abstract reasoning). I generally try not to harm the ones that do because I cannot be certain of the final quality of sapience (Sense of Self, awareness of the individual and the individual's relation to the world) since I am not -that- particular ant.

Of course, that goes out the window when they bite me, 'cause at that point it's just self-defense.

[Aucald]

Right Rogers, i dont know why i mix her with Jes tereth. I dont play alliance enough to keep them straight. I havent actually seen the alliances side of that zone so I was just operating under the assumption that Genn was kinda just there because he heard Sylvanas was there so he was like IM GOING.

The original orders of the Alliance forces in Stormheim were to aid the Champion and their retinue with finding and acquiring the Aegis of Aggramar for the Legionfall campaign - they had nothing at all to do with the Forsaken fleet or presence in the zone. Later, presumably en route to Stormheim, intelligence fell into the hands of the Alliance forces in the area that the Forsaken Fleet, including Sylvanas' royal flagship, was present in the area. When Genn and Rogers learned that Sylvanas herself was personally present, they decided to attack the fleet and were "unable to communicate their plans to the rest of the Alliance forces" for reasons unknown (which is why the Skyfire is alone in attacking the Forsaken, much to the surprise and amusement of Nathanos).

Genn and Rogers were given permission to engage if they felt it was necessary to, which both of them liberally translated into a rationale for their attack (motivated by personal vendettas). Anduin quite obviously disagreed as he rebuked them both in "Before the Storm," but because his orders were open to interpretation he couldn't formally chastise them for doing what they, at the time, felt was right. The Horde, obviously, views Anduin's laxity not in the spirit Anduin intended but rather as tacit agreement with Genn's vendetta against their current Warchief.

[Canpinter]

Real global politics are touchy. Generals get fired for getting too drunk in public if its perceived it will bring discredit to the military.

Azeroth has Horde, Alliance and a bunch of small groups noone cares about. Alliance generally unilaterally hates the Horde so why would the general populace want Genn shamed for what he did, its not like they care what the Horde thinks. There isnt some global relations to manage.

The only peace Anduin ever wants is to stop killing each other over dumb shit. Geographically nothing would change, Sindorei wouldnt suddenly start living in Stormwind if he got his peace we just wouldnt fight each other over petty shit.

ok how many times should the alliance be aloud to try and kill horde leaders before the horde can fight back?

[Camthur]

This.... is wrong.

[/snip]
No one is "Well within their rights" to commit genocide. Summary execution for surrendering soldiers and innocent civilians is morally unthinkable.

Sylvanas, come on down! You're the next contestant on "Morally Unthinkable Genocide" This is so great, you just condemned the actions of the Warchief of the Horde. Thank you, very much. Thank you for your support.

Sylvanas is good at the genocide thing eh?

-- She tried to wipe out the Gilneans
-- She had every survivor she could find in Hillsbrad killed directly, through experimentation or plaguebombing
-- She's responsible for all the Alliance and Horde deaths at the Wrathgate because she not only allowed, but encouraged research and development of the blight.
-- She had the humans who were trying to rebuild in the Plaguelands killed.
-- She murdered who knows how many innocent Night Elves in a tree that was defenseless.
-- She murdered scores of her own troops at the Siege of Lordaeron and then desecrated their remains by raising them into undeath

[Flarelaine]

Because it's a biological weapon that destroys all life.
It destroys any chance for any creature to live there for god knows how long.

The light destroys the undead sure, but it does not destroy everything else around it like the Blight would.

In other words... The blight kills all living beings. The light kills none.

[Isilarya]

ok how many times should the alliance be aloud to try and kill horde leaders before the horde can fight back?

If we were talking about someone other than Sylvanas this wouldnt be a problem. Most of us in the horde want to kill the bitch. Hell ive wanted her dead since Cataclysm when she basically said fuck it im the lich king now.

[ChairmanKaga]

In other words... The blight kills all living beings. The light kills none.

But it kills all the Undead? So the Blight:Living::Light:Undead, right?

[Aucald]

You seem to be misunderstanding the difference between the two. I was suggesting that your criteria for personhood are too flexible and malleable. That "These traits are required for personhood, except when something is clearly a person but does not possess these traits". Mine is a principle, in that it doesn't have caveats. Once an entity is shown to have sapience (Awareness of self, awareness of reality, and ability not only to learn but to engage in abstract thought or reasoning) that's it. Boom. It's a person. Doesn't matter if it's an octopus or a computer program or a 4th dimensional baleen whale intersecting with our reality on only three of it's axes in passing.

I don't misunderstand it, I fully understand what you are saying - I disagree with your understanding, and implied (as well as outright stated) that your principle isn't really possible to apply because you can't judge whether or not another being is truly sapient or not. You don't know if I'm sapient or not, you can't even be sure that I think - you only know that you think, and you extend the same effective courtesy to other things you justify as "like yourself." For all you know I could be an advanced scripting program that reads your words and formulates logical (or illogical) rebuttals to them using previous input put through an algorithmic process. You *assume* I'm human, and in doing so you also assume I'm sapient and experience the same rich inner-awareness as yourself. For which I, personally, am grateful for, but also recognize is completely based on things you are unable to have evidence for.

And yes. There are insects which can be taught to engage in certain behavior, but not shown abstract reasoning. SOME have shown abstract reasoning (In the case of Ants, -complex- abstract reasoning). I generally try not to harm the ones that do because I cannot be certain of the final quality of sapience (Sense of Self, awareness of the individual and the individual's relation to the world) since I am not -that- particular ant.

No one is really certain of any quality of sapience beyond themselves - we know that insects can learn, though; and in so doing we extend to them a degree of kinship in the family of thinking/learning beings. Your very words above seem to bolster my version of the argument - by seeing that you share a similarity with ants, you begin to anthropomorphize them to a degree, and in so doing you can gain sympathy/empathy for their plight and try not to harm them in accordance with your values.

Of course, that goes out the window when they bite me, 'cause at that point it's just self-defense.

Same with me and most forms of wasps - I generally put them on the same degree of regard as I do demons. I don't really care if they can learn or have self-awareness, I want them out of my immediate vicinity.

[Flarelaine]

But it kills all the Undead? So the Blight:Living::Light:Undead, right?

The dead should stay dead and act like it.

[NED funded]

I mean... kinda?

Anduin acknowledges in his letter in Before the Storm that the Horde and Alliance aren't at peace. He calls for a Cease-fire for a single day. Meaning the War is already happening, and he's willing to stop attacking for 1 day.

You could argue that it's just "Hostilities" but with attempted regicide and a sneak attack during a Truce to fight a larger enemy? That's a bit more than Hostilities.

Kinda not, war hasn't really gotten hot by then.

[Aucald]

The dead should stay dead and act like it.

They probably would've preferred that, if it had been an option originally. Sadly, the Lich King and the Scourge weren't in a giving mood when they raised the dead into undeath en masse and set them against the living.

[Amaterasu65]

Do you all remember those desperate horde fangirls here preaching again and again that the goblins in Sillithus were civilians?

Civilians who could push back the Sentinels and EL.

[korijenkins]

I love the mental gymnastics blizzard fanboys do to try and decipher the mediocre storytelling.

[FuxieDK]

Anduin has done nothing wrong ever :P

So, coluding with an ÜBER EVIL black dragon is "nothing wrong ever"???

Wrathion may be (have been) a hatchling, but Black Dragons are per definition evil and can never be trusted. The fact that Wration is without insanity only makes him even more dangerous..

[Isilarya]

So, coluding with an ÜBER EVIL black dragon is "nothing wrong ever"???

Wrathion may be (have been) a hatchling, but Black Dragons are per definition evil and can never be trusted. The fact that Wration is without insanity only makes him even more dangerous..

Black Dragons in D&D are defined as evil, Red dragons are technically too which obviously doesnt apply in WoW. Neltharion corrupted his flight they werent innately evil. What do you think of Ebonhorn? Do you think hes got some millenia old plot against the Highmountain Tauren?

[Steampunkette]

Sylvanas, come on down! You're the next contestant on "Morally Unthinkable Genocide" This is so great, you just condemned the actions of the Warchief of the Horde. Thank you, very much. Thank you for your support.

Sylvanas is good at the genocide thing eh?

-- She tried to wipe out the Gilneans
-- She had every survivor she could find in Hillsbrad killed directly, through experimentation or plaguebombing
-- She's responsible for all the Alliance and Horde deaths at the Wrathgate because she not only allowed, but encouraged research and development of the blight.
-- She had the humans who were trying to rebuild in the Plaguelands killed.
-- She murdered who knows how many innocent Night Elves in a tree that was defenseless.
-- She murdered scores of her own troops at the Siege of Lordaeron and then desecrated their remains by raising them into undeath

I mean... Like... What? Did you sincerely think there was literally ANY POINT where I thought Sylvanas's burning of Teldrassil was morally appropriate?

...

Do you just think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is 100% Horde Fangirl or Fanboy and thinks Sylvanas can do no wrong?

Man. That's kinda sad. And then you follow up with bullshit.

Sylvanas tried to conquer Gilneas. She used the Blight against the Military -significantly- after the Civilians had been evacuated from the city due to the Worgen Attack (We're talking MONTHS later). Only did so to avoid the vision she'd seen in which her entire population of Forsaken were slaughtered by the Gilnean Military and the Alliance Counter attack. And later she used Lorna Crowley as leverage to end the fighting.

Sylvanas had fuck all to do with Stillwater's experiments and the Blighting of Southshore was an accident caused by the Forsaken using Blight on the Barracks to kill the military -only- before Deathwing swooped past and caused a wave that broke the Blight Tanks and blighted the entire area.

Sylvanas did not authorize the Wrathgate Incident and was in fact nearly killed during the Coup Attempt. That's like arguing that Colt is responsible for everyone who has ever died by their guns because they authorized and encouraged their R&D department to make the guns. Only less, 'cause it's more like they're being held responsible for guns that were in their factory which was robbed and temporarily taken over... All analogies are imperfect, but.. .yeah. Sylvanas wasn't responsible for the Wrathgate.

Are you talking about Andorhal, there? Andorhal was the Horde and Alliance fighting against the Scourge during War Time before retreating to their sides of the city until the Alliance Militia attacked the Horde from behind and jumpstarted the second battle of Andorhal. Not "The Forsaken attacking humans rebuilding the Plaguelands" or whatever.

Definitely did murder a shitload of Nelves in a deplorable act of sadistic warfare.

She also killed some of her incapacitated troops at Lordaeron, others were saved. "Scores" implies we have an accurate counting and that it's a large number. Neither of which we know. Desecrating their remains, though, is iffy at best. She used their dead bodies to continue fighting for the Horde against the Alliance, which no one remarked on. Even Anduin in all his horror of her killing her own troops said fuck-all about "Desecrating their remains" and neither did Saurfang, Baine, or Lor'themar.

I think that might be a matter of modern cultural hang-ups being incorrectly applied to morality.

[Flarelaine]

They probably would've preferred that, if it had been an option originally. Sadly, the Lich King and the Scourge weren't in a giving mood when they raised the dead into undeath en masse and set them against the living.

I agree a lot of them would probably have found death preferable, but somehow, we always see efforts on their part to share their suffering rather prominently.

[Arkthugal]

Also why would you believe an old god

Oh, perhaps all the Arthas parallels Anduin was pulling out over the course of the Siege of Lordaeron.

[Jester Joe]

Oh, perhaps all the Arthas parallels Anduin was pulling out over the course of the Siege of Lordaeron.

Like saving his allies from the plague, and ensuring everyone lived, and trying to take people alive instead of killing them


...wait a minute

[Isilarya]

Like saving his allies from the plague, and ensuring everyone lived, and trying to take people alive instead of killing them


...wait a minute

Lets be honest we as players know that Arthas was right. Uthers stupid moral highground would likely have instantly damned the entire Eastern Kingdoms.

I say that as being outside of the world and knowing what was truly going on but to say that Arthas didnt do the right thing is disingenuous. And if Uther and Jaina both went to Northrend with him the corruption likely wouldnt have gotten hold.