Darnassus is gone and it still has no "replacement"

[Raisei]

You can just SAY "we didn't want to take chances, so we went with an easy solution" instead of trying to somehow pretend it was the ONLY solution.

Makes it all seem at least slightly less hypocritical, you know.

No government in existence would have let an army of alien invaders that slaughtered several cities full of people just go. So we cannot allow them to go, we cannot imprison them and we did not want to kill them. What option is left? Enlighten us.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I didn't think you could get more hypocritical,

how could it be more hypocritical I’ve been using the same terminology from the start?

And somehow you think that's the same as resettling them somewhere and effectively leaving them be?

other then the abuse which was all black more and not supported by lorderon, I don’t only think it’s the same as resetting I think it’s better.

The “ slowly dying of depression and misery” wasn’t something inflicted by the alliance it was blood with drawl that dalaran tried to cure, dumping them some where else wouldn’t get rid of it they would have just ended up dead or again joining grom who put it off but continuous slaughter.

By actually prioritizing the teaching part instead of the imprisoning part. The concentration camps weren't there for "teaching". They were there for detainment. They were hoping things would just work out somehow, maybe, and if not, then at least they'd just die on their own. THAT was the reality, not "teaching".

You know how you "teach" an enemy that you don't have to be enemies? By DEMONSTRATING to them that you don't have to be, not by locking them up and hoping they'll eventually realize you're such a good guy. By showing them kindness and alternatives to violence, not by isolating them and trying hard not to watch what's going on.

you can’t teach a hostile populous who is focused on war without first detaining them, so sure you can say they should have done better and they likely would have if Blackmore wasn’t pocketing the funds, but even then literally nothing changes they are still first and for most in prison camps even if they get a better education at the end and get out without thrall springing then years down the line.

You're making a classic category error. They DIDN'T capture them doesn't mean THEY COULD NEVER HAVE captured them. It didn't happen = it was impossible. You don't know, and can't demonstrate that it would have been impossible - you're simply looking at a specific example in time, seeing it didn't happen, and conclude from that it would never have happened. That's grossly erroneous.

As the lore is laid out it was impossible for them to capture Grom, you can say in an alternate timeline where they let the orcs out from stubbed his toe and fell into the alliances hands, but nothing supports that.

You've defused your own argument here. A leader interested in peace DID arise. Which means it WAS possible. Just because the leaders at the time weren't interested in peace given the circumstances that transpired (and there's nothing saying this could not have changed if events had gone differently) doesn't mean it would never have happened; in fact as you yourself admit, it DID happen. Which means the orcs weren't INCAPABLE of coexistence, it just took different circumstances to make that happen. Which means other options DID exist and COULD, at least in principle, have led to a different, more peaceful outcome. We don't know if it would have happened differently, but we also know it WASN'T impossible because coexistence DID happen eventually.

No it was not possible, the situation that lead to thrall’s perspective is one of a kind and not a single other orc shared.

thrall didn’t suffer from blood withdrawal, was the only baby part of the hordes invasion force, was raised by humans, didn’t learn orc culture, had no war baggage, not a single orc other then him had any of these things other then a lack of withdrawal and that was accomplished through continuous waring.

This rests on the premise that they CAN'T capture them; see above for why that's erroneous. If the premise was true the point would have merit, but the premise is false to begin with.

if they capture them they are back to housing them which is what you are arguing against, so take that and killing them off the table and all it leaves is endless orc assaults until there is nothing but orcs.

No, the arguments I presented do that. That's how it works. "X is true BECAUSE...", not just "X is true". You're the one doing that. Heck, you even engaging with my presented options means you already agree with me - that genocide or concentration camps weren't the ONLY options, they were just easier than alternatives with uncertain or risky outcomes. And that's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing that another option would have magically solved the problem, guaranteed - just that it WAS an option, and that saying it wasn't is massive hypocrisy.

as I said in my first replies you were right there is something beyond housing or killing them and that is letting them wipe out the alliance.

Those are the three options there are no more no less and the alliance took the morally superior one of keeping them alive and giving them a chance to be better even if they wasted that chance by putting the wrong man in charge.

Every other option you have tried to raise has just been one of those three with extra steps.

[Feanoro]

Oh yes, I forgot, Thrall was a man grown and sprang fully formed from a cabbage patch.

Thrall was not born at the time of the Old Horde's defeat and the founding of the camps. Blizzard directly stated there were no orc children in the Old Horde that attacked Azeroth in "Rise of the Horde". This is established canon.

And they were victims, too. You just don't want to admit that, because it's easier to see them as monsters instead of people. Makes them easier to cage like animals, and all that. And there were NO humans, none at all, who developed any kind of rapport with the orcs, right? RIGHT?

They were victims of the Burning Legion, sure. The Alliance leaders DID NOT KNOW THAT.

And I'm not saying they have meta knowledge.

Yes you are, when you condemn the Alliance leaders for not knowing about the Burning Legion, or how the fel corruption works, or that the orcs weren't always like that. They had NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER about any of that, just that these alien invaders slaughtered their way up a continent and were barely stopped.

You're literally asking them to irrationally gamble their people's lives on some vague idea that the Old Horde won't try again. No sane leader would do that. You want us to be sympathetic to the orcs, where's your sympathy for everyone they massacred?

Your only concrete suggestion beyond these vague "they could have done something else" cries has been to send them away unsupervised. How are you unable to see that from the in game perspective, that would be insane and suicidal? How are you unable to see that the Alliance leaders have not only the right but the duty to protect their people?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

If I was an Alliance leader back then I've made my view point clear; force march them through the Dark Portal and instead of spending so many resources feeding them in camps for years, build a massive fortress around the portal and kill anything that steps through while having the Kirin Tor study and try to shut that portal down for good.

I could be wrong but Im pretty sure the portal was gone by the time most of the camps were set up so they would really only work for the first force lead by doom hammer that was captured and the rest would still need the camps.

[baskev]

Darnassus is gone and the Alliance is down to 3 cities while horde still got under city?

Theramore is never fixed.

Not even Gilneas is back ingame for the Alliance even if it did happen lorevise years ago?

Will Alliance ever get something?

No, as alliance player. And player for this game for a smitch less then 18 years....nope.

For me its even like this. either the next expansion after dragonflight the alliance will go full horde ( aka, kill a lot of people and follow a mad leader...like current lightbulb sitting on the trone). OR we will loose a other city.
Lore wise it would make sense to get Gilneas back. And did we not just get a seed for a new world tree?

But its bad. yeah lets recap:
Horde: ( please do not hate me for the bad names)
mulgore, ogrimmar, troll island, undermine, undercity, drazarhalor , silvermoon, that extra big town above ogrimmar, high mountain and freaking huge city of suramar

Alliance:
SW, ironforge, exodar, borallus.

The rest is either broken/empty, under siege or like not even as big as a town.

- - - Updated - - -

Camp Taurajo. We will never forget.

yeah lets compare a town , that had the option to let all the civilians leave ( yes alliance should not have attacked).
vs
bombing a whole big town/small city. and only by betraying horde members we got most of the civilians out :P

[Biomega]

As the lore is laid out it was impossible for them to capture Grom

Where? Where does it say it was IMPOSSIBLE, as opposed to merely them never succeeding to do so? There's a big difference between doesn't happen and can't happen. BIG difference.

No it was not possible, the situation that lead to thrall’s perspective is one of a kind and not a single other orc shared.

How do you know? Sure maybe Thrall's circumstances were unique, but what says that it's ONLY those circumstances and no conceivable other ones that could have led to a reform of the Horde? Clearly the orcs were capable of it. What tells you that unless it was exactly what happened with Thrall, it COULD NOT have worked?

You're confidently asserting that it WASN'T POSSIBLE, but impossibility has to be demonstrated.

thrall didn’t suffer from blood withdrawal, was the only baby part of the hordes invasion force, was raised by humans, didn’t learn orc culture, had no war baggage, not a single orc other then him had any of these things other then a lack of withdrawal and that was accomplished through continuous waring.

Sure, but why is Thrall the only possible leader that could have saved his people? Why couldn't some other orc have gone through an enlightening experience and done something similar? How do you know that was IMPOSSIBLE? I'm not saying it would have happened or that it was likely or anything like that, I just don't know it's IMPOSSIBLE - you seem to know that, and I'd like to know how.

if they capture them they are back to housing them which is what you are arguing against

Let's be clear here, since apparently you just glossed over this.

I'm not "against housing". I'm against calling concentration camps "housing", because THEY ARE NOT. If I said "I want to house the homeless" and then went and rounded up all homeless people and put them in camps somewhere in the back country, isolating them and keeping them contained against their will, no one in their right mind would say I'm "housing" them, even though I'm technically providing them with food and shelter. Those are simply NOT. THE. SAME. THING. and no amount of pretending and ignoring objections is going to make it so.

as I said in my first replies you were right there is something beyond housing or killing them and that is letting them wipe out the alliance.

So now we went from "we only had 2 options!" to "we only had 3 options!", which is equally fallacious. Congrats?

Every other option you have tried to raise has just been one of those three with extra steps.

Really? What about "deport them to Kalimdor and leave them there", say. It's not wiping them all out, and it's not putting them into camps, and you can't claim it's "wiping out the Alliance" because you have no idea if that would happen anymore than you know that would happen after you put them into camps.

And again: I'm not saying that's a particularly good option, or a feasible one; I'm saying it's an OPTION, and pretending it's not so you can justify your choices is immoral and mendacious.

- - - Updated - - -

Your only concrete suggestion beyond these vague "they could have done something else" cries has been to send them away unsupervised. How are you unable to see that from the in game perspective, that would be insane and suicidal? How are you unable to see that the Alliance leaders have not only the right but the duty to protect their people?

First off, that's NOT the only suggestion I made, so either you didn't read my posts or you're pretending that it was the only one because you don't have a good answer for the rest.

Secondly, I'm not saying those other options were GOOD options, only that they WERE OPTIONS, and that you can't pretend they weren't just because it conveniently exculpates other choices you made by pretending your hand was forced. That's all. I never said things would have gone differently with other choices, or that other choices wouldn't have backfired - I'm only and have only ever been saying that they HAD other choices, but chose not to take them. That's all.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Where? Where does it say it was IMPOSSIBLE, as opposed to merely them never succeeding to do so? There's a big difference between doesn't happen and can't happen. BIG difference.

all of the lore from WC2-3.

How do you know? Sure maybe Thrall's circumstances were unique, but what says that it's ONLY those circumstances and no conceivable other ones that could have led to a reform of the Horde? Clearly the orcs were capable of it. What tells you that unless it was exactly what happened with Thrall, it COULD NOT have worked?

You're confidently asserting that it WASN'T POSSIBLE, but impossibility has to be demonstrated.


Sure, but why is Thrall the only possible leader that could have saved his people? Why couldn't some other orc have gone through an enlightening experience and done something similar? How do you know that was IMPOSSIBLE? I'm not saying it would have happened or that it was likely or anything like that, I just don't know it's IMPOSSIBLE - you seem to know that, and I'd like to know how.

we know it’s impossible because not a single orc like thrall as ever developed any where in Warcraft, he is a singular anomaly in all of Warcraft history and even the orcs who followed him didn’t take up his mind set.

Let's be clear here, since apparently you just glossed over this.

I'm not "against housing". I'm against calling concentration camps "housing", because THEY ARE NOT. If I said "I want to house the homeless" and then went and rounded up all homeless people and put them in camps somewhere in the back country, isolating them and keeping them contained against their will, no one in their right mind would say I'm "housing" them, even though I'm technically providing them with food and shelter. Those are simply NOT. THE. SAME. THING. and no amount of pretending and ignoring objections is going to make it so.

I really couldn’t care less about playing word games, call it what you will imprisoned interment camps I don’t care. I went with housing from the start an you knew what I meant as you kept replying accordingly.

Before any thing at all could be done with the orcs they needed to be imprisoned/interred/houses for the time it takes them to get over there withdrawal and atleast learn the langue, that time may have been shorter if they weren’t miss treated by Blackmore but there would always be some period of time where they would need to be housed without there consent.

So now we went from "we only had 2 options!" to "we only had 3 options!", which is equally fallacious. Congrats?

Now? My first reply to you was saying there were actually 3 options did you forget it already?

Really? What about "deport them to Kalimdor and leave them there", say. It's not wiping them all out, and it's not putting them into camps, and you can't claim it's "wiping out the Alliance" because you have no idea if that would happen anymore than you know that would happen after you put them into camps.

that’s killing them.

As you pointed out the orcs were “slowly dying of depression and misery”, and that had nothing to do with the alliance, dumping them on a shore some where while going through that would have been a death sentence.

And again: I'm not saying that's a particularly good option, or a feasible one; I'm saying it's an OPTION, and pretending it's not so you can justify your choices is immoral and mendacious.

that’s just choosing killing them all and trying to pretend that there bloody isn’t on your hands which is far more immoral and mendacious.

[Feanoro]

If I was an Alliance leader back then I've made my view point clear; force march them through the Dark Portal and instead of spending so many resources feeding them in camps for years, build a massive fortress around the portal and kill anything that steps through while having the Kirin Tor study and try to shut that portal down for good.

That's not really an option either. For all the Alliance leaders know, the Old Horde will get reinforcements there, and may be able to open another portal in a different location.

[Aresk]

Zul and his followers were exiled and tried to start there own kingdom with the Mogu they didn’t have Rastakhan’S backing and there actions weren’t for the empire, the Mogu even show up later and say Zul said they could have Zandalar and they are told to fuck off and he wasn’t speaking for the empire.

Really Zul and his followers are no different then the high bourn they were exiled did abunch of shady stuff without the night elfs approval and then were let back in.

I've never heard of an exile; where is this stated in the lore? Zul and his followers wanted to go do their thing and Rastakhan gave them permission (and a means) to leave and do it, not caring whether they succeeded or failed. If he were exiled, I find it hard to believe that he'd be welcome back as an advisor to the king and reappointed to a seat on the Zanchuli Council that they kept vacant on the off chance the exiled troll happened to come back to Zuldazar. Specifically, Lorewalker Cho recounts the following:

Lorewalker Cho says: King Rastakhan tired of Zul and his troubling nightmares. To be rid of the prophet, he granted Zul the use of his largest ships, so that he and his followers could seek a new land if his visions came to pass.

Giving someone a boat so that they can go do what they want and leave you alone isn't exile; it's enablement.

That's just plain false.

They could have resettled them somewhere.

They could have integrated them into their society.

They could have only executed their leaders, and let the rest go free.

Etc. etc.

There's a slew of other options, only those options were less convenient. Don't pretend they didn't exist, just because they were more difficult to do.

The bolded part was literally Terenas' suggestion: hold the orcs until their rage subsided and try to work with them. However, Stromgarde and Gilneas wanted them executed. The compromise was life imprisonment.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I've never heard of an exile; where is this stated in the lore? Zul and his followers wanted to go do their thing and Rastakhan gave them permission (and a means) to leave and do it, not caring whether they succeeded or failed. If he were exiled, I find it hard to believe that he'd be welcome back as an advisor to the king and reappointed to a seat on the Zanchuli Council that they kept vacant on the off chance the exiled troll happened to come back to Zuldazar. Specifically, Lorewalker Cho recounts the following:



Giving someone a boat so that they can go do what they want and leave you alone isn't exile; it's enablement.

here's the quote/book that mentions it being exile, I also think it's mentioned that he was accepted back out of exile some where in zandlari questing and some trolls weren't happy about it but can't say I remember the questline to look for that.

Faithful Servant,

I have returned, as promised. The time has come to recall our brothers and sisters that sailed with me into exile during the Cataclysm. The time has come to once again unite the Zandalari under a single banner.

You each have your tasks, see to them.

Your Prophet, Zul


Oh, and as for <name>, know that I forsaw you reading this.

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/The_Word_of_Zul

[Biomega]

all of the lore from WC2-3.

Can you be a bit more specific? Those events say it DIDN'T happen, not that it WAS IMPOSSIBLE to happen. That is a significant difference.

we know it’s impossible because not a single orc like thrall as ever developed any where in Warcraft, he is a singular anomaly in all of Warcraft history and even the orcs who followed him didn’t take up his mind set.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that Thrall could have happened again, I'm saying how do you know it's only THRALL that could have saved the Horde, and not some other leader doing other things that still inspire them enough. We know Thrall worked; how do you know nothing else could have worked, too, if Thrall hadn't been around?

I really couldn’t care less about playing word games

Evidently not. You may refuse to "play word games", but your refusal doesn't magically make concentration camps = "housing". Frankly it's insulting you'd even defend that position rather than just saying "okay my bad, should've phrased that better here's what I mean..."

I went with housing from the start an you knew what I meant as you kept replying accordingly.

And I explained that's not what I meant by concentration camp several times, yet you kept going back and treating them as though they were the same thing. AFTER I made clear I did NOT mean the same thing. So you're just intentionally ignoring my point by referencing something I made clear I was not talking about? Cool.

Before any thing at all could be done with the orcs they needed to be imprisoned/interred/houses for the time it takes them to get over there withdrawal and atleast learn the langue, that time may have been shorter if they weren’t miss treated by Blackmore but there would always be some period of time where they would need to be housed without there consent.

And, again, I am NOT against giving them some kind of shelter and food, not even against that being in controlled conditions originally. You, however, seem to be implying that the ONLY way that could have been done was the way it played out in the camps. Which is obviously and trivially false.

Now? My first reply to you was saying there were actually 3 options did you forget it already?

And you seem to be ignoring the ACTUAL point I'm making, which is that going from 2 to 3 does not change anything about the argument and is a complete red herring.

that’s killing them.

As you pointed out the orcs were “slowly dying of depression and misery”, and that had nothing to do with the alliance, dumping them on a shore some where while going through that would have been a death sentence.

How do you know? They recovered eventually, without the humans doing much other than locking them up. How much of their depression was due to defeat and incarceration, and how much was due to demon-blood withdrawal? And how do you KNOW that? I'm not saying everything would have been guaranteed to go well, I'm just curious to learn how YOU seem to know it WOULD NOT HAVE.

that’s just choosing killing them all and trying to pretend that there bloody isn’t on your hands which is far more immoral and mendacious.

Only if you KNOW they're going to die, and they actually do - neither of which can be demonstrated here. Could it all have led to them dying? Sure. Would it have been IMPOSSIBLE for them to recover and start a civilization of their own? We can't know that, yet somehow you seem to be certain. Where is that certainty coming from?

Side note: You also seem to place very little value on freedom, by the way. Which is amazing. Many people would rather die than be caged like animals, yet somehow you're entirely confident making that choice for others and pretending you're doing them a favor. That is very strange to me.

- - - Updated - - -

The bolded part was literally Terenas' suggestion: hold the orcs until their rage subsided and try to work with them. However, Stromgarde and Gilneas wanted them executed. The compromise was life imprisonment.

Which only proves my point. They HAD other options, they just chose not to take the risk. Which is fine. People just shouldn't lie about that and pretend there were no other options.

[Feanoro]

First off, that's NOT the only suggestion I made, so either you didn't read my posts or you're pretending that it was the only one because you don't have a good answer for the rest.

Meanwhile, back in reality, I challenged your suggestions, you answered and ultimately stopped answering all but resettlement. If anyone is pretending, it's you trying to act as if we didn't already go over it.

Secondly, I'm not saying those other options were GOOD options, only that they WERE OPTIONS, and that you can't pretend they weren't just because it conveniently exculpates other choices you made by pretending your hand was forced. That's all. I never said things would have gone differently with other choices, or that other choices wouldn't have backfired - I'm only and have only ever been saying that they HAD other choices, but chose not to take them. That's all.

So... your claim is that bad choices are equally valid? What kind of logic is that?

Dumping them in Kalimdor was not an option, because it was unknown at the time of the camps' creation. At best, it was a legend to everyone in-game not unlike us saying Atlantis. You can't plan to deport orcs to a place that might not exist. Again, you're blaming Alliance leaders for player knowledge.

Even assuming they did know about Kalimdor, the same problem applies. Also, what's stopping the orcs from building ships and sailing back to start slaughtering again? Resettling them ANYWHERE will require supervision to ensure everyone's safety.

Alternately, if they're in such bad shape, dumping them somewhere unknown means you have no idea if there's food, water, or hostile creatures or natives. In such a case, you're simply hoping they survive without any assurance that they will. Thus, you are effectively killing them while pretending you aren't.

So as Lorgar said, all your "options" are variants on the camps and execution, with extra steps involved.



I'm not going to quote the posts that came while I was writing this. We know the orcs' lethargy and depression was from fel blood withdrawal because we are directly told so. How do we know only Thrall could have saved the Horde? Because the writers directly said so. That is the established canon, whether you like it or not.

I'm really beginning to think you don't understand that this is a fictional story, as well as how you clearly refuse to accept the situation it presents.

Real world people are not lying by pointing out what the story directly says. Real world people are not immoral for pointing out the options that were available according to the rules of the setting of that story.

[Biomega]

So... your claim is that bad choices are equally valid? What kind of logic is that?

That's not what I'm saying. That's why I put "THAT'S ALL" after the literal sentence describing my point, which I'll quote here for your convenience since you apparently didn't read it the first time:

I'm only and have only ever been saying that they HAD other choices, but chose not to take them

I'm saying nothing about the VALUE of those choices, only that they EXISTED, and that people can't pretend they didn't in an effort to turn things into a false dichotomy that somehow gives them the moral high ground simply because they didn't choose genocide. We don't know how other options would have played out. I've said as much repeatedly. But they EXISTED, and you can't pretend they didn't just to make your actual choice look better.

We can't say how good/bad other choices never taken and never realized would have been in hindsight. Could have gone better, could have gone worse. We have no idea. BUT THEY WERE THERE, and there was at least the POSSIBILITY of something being a better choice, so you can't pretend there wasn't another choice. That's all I'm saying. Read that again: THAT. IS. ALL.

[Feanoro]

The reason there were only two choices is because all your other supposed options had a high probability of failure/bad things happening or were just the camps/execution options with extra steps.

Who would deliberately choose a plan that's likely to fail or make things worse, particularly when the cost would be mass deaths? No one sane. Thus, such options are logically dismissed, leaving two options.

Yes, the Alliance can very much claim the moral high ground when they chose to be merciful to defeated opponents, particularly when it cost them as dearly as it did.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Can you be a bit more specific? Those events say it DIDN'T happen, not that it WAS IMPOSSIBLE to happen. That is a significant difference.

Take your pick of any novel involving Grom even in passing, they could not capture him no matter what they tried or who they sent.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that Thrall could have happened again, I'm saying how do you know it's only THRALL that could have saved the Horde, and not some other leader doing other things that still inspire them enough. We know Thrall worked; how do you know nothing else could have worked, too, if Thrall hadn't been around?

without Thrall all they could be inspired to do is stay as they were and start another war, no other orc ever had the means to free them and the will for peace.

Evidently not. You may refuse to "play word games", but your refusal doesn't magically make concentration camps = "housing". Frankly it's insulting you'd even defend that position rather than just saying "okay my bad, should've phrased that better here's what I mean..."

Be insulted I really don't care you replied to 3 or so post with me using the same terminology before you started pearl clutching I'm sure you'll get over it.

And I explained that's not what I meant by concentration camp several times, yet you kept going back and treating them as though they were the same thing. AFTER I made clear I did NOT mean the same thing. So you're just intentionally ignoring my point by referencing something I made clear I was not talking about? Cool.

They are the same thing you use one word I use another but we both know were talking about the orc camps.

And, again, I am NOT against giving them some kind of shelter and food, not even against that being in controlled conditions originally. You, however, seem to be implying that the ONLY way that could have been done was the way it played out in the camps. Which is obviously and trivially false.

I'm not lying to my self that any sort of controlled condition isn't still housing them against there will, I've mentioned multiple time's that they could/should have done better if not for black more but at the end of the day it's still holding them against there will.

And you seem to be ignoring the ACTUAL point I'm making, which is that going from 2 to 3 does not change anything about the argument and is a complete red herring.

Then you probably shouldn't have brought up the number changing from 2 to 3 when from the start I already egknowledged it was 3.

How do you know? They recovered eventually, without the humans doing much other than locking them up. How much of their depression was due to defeat and incarceration, and how much was due to demon-blood withdrawal? And how do you KNOW that? I'm not saying everything would have been guaranteed to go well, I'm just curious to learn how YOU seem to know it WOULD NOT HAVE.

It took them 8 years to get over the withdrawal, that's 8 years of with shelter from the elements, food water and treating there wounds(even if some were inflicted by guards), saying "they recovered eventually" is meaningless when they wouldn't even make it a quarter into that recovery time in if ditched onto a coast in that state.

Only if you KNOW they're going to die, and they actually do - neither of which can be demonstrated here. Could it all have led to them dying? Sure. Would it have been IMPOSSIBLE for them to recover and start a civilization of their own? We can't know that, yet somehow you seem to be certain. Where is that certainty coming from?

all of the lore around the orc's between warcraft 2-3, Before thrall there was three paths, rampage with grom, wait to die, join blackhand and continue demonic corruption. all of the lore paints it as such nothing goes against it.

Side note: You also seem to place very little value on freedom, by the way. Which is amazing. Many people would rather die than be caged like animals, yet somehow you're entirely confident making that choice for others and pretending you're doing them a favor. That is very strange to me.

I have put absolutely no value in the "freedom" To die without a chance or to be a marauding killing machine. if some one's freedom has to be limited to avoid either of those I'm all for it.

Which only proves my point. They HAD other options, they just chose not to take the risk. Which is fine. People just shouldn't lie about that and pretend there were no other options.

You are aware Terenas' suggestion is still housing them for a time right? that's still with in the 3 options.

[Biomega]

Take your pick of any novel involving Grom even in passing, they could not capture him no matter what they tried or who they sent.

I'm not sure you actually understand the difference between "doesn't happen" and "can't happen".

without Thrall all they could be inspired to do is stay as they were and start another war, no other orc ever had the means to free them and the will for peace.

How do you know no other orc could have freed them? We know Thrall happened, but how do you know no one else could have done something similar? Kind of related to the above point in that there's a big difference between "no one else did it" and "no one else could have possibly done it". Those are NOT the same thing.

They are the same thing you use one word I use another but we both know were talking about the orc camps.

No. When I use "housing" I'm not talking about concentration camps. When YOU use it you do. The problem is that you THEN try to attack points I make that involve MY use of "housing" by equating them to YOUR use of "housing", i.e. suggesting that any form of resettlement would have required not MY kind of "housing" (food and shelter) but YOUR kind of "housing" (concentration camps) - which is not only not the point I was making, but is also grossly fallacious. THAT is the problem, not the fact that you decide to use "housing" interchangeably with "concentration camps" (which is morally and rhetorically problematic but doesn't in itself interfere with my point unless it does what I explained here).

I'm not lying to my self that any sort of controlled condition isn't still housing them against there wil

Neither am I, but I also don't pretend that all "housing" is the exact same and can be treated the same, like you are doing. That's why I use different words, and you use the same word.

It took them 8 years to get over the withdrawal, that's 8 years of with shelter from the elements, food water and treating there wounds(even if some were inflicted by guards), saying "they recovered eventually" is meaningless when they wouldn't even make it a quarter into that recovery time in if ditched onto a coast in that state.

How do you know it would have taken them 8 years if left to their own devices? How do you know they wouldn't have rallied much faster when necessity hit, and they didn't have to deal with the reality of a humiliating imprisonment? You're saying that everything would have gone the exact same regardless of whether they were in concentration camps, or whether they had their own settlement somewhere. How do you know that?

all of the lore around the orc's between warcraft 2-3, Before thrall there was three paths, rampage with grom, wait to die, join blackhand and continue demonic corruption. all of the lore paints it as such nothing goes against it.

And yet somehow we got to a good place in the end, so clearly it was possible to redeem the Horde. How do you know other paths couldn't also have led to that end? We know nothing about roads not taken, you can't simply conclude that there WERE NONE just because they weren't obvious or considered. We know what happened; we don't know what could have happened. You go from "this happened" to "therefore nothing else could have happened", which is logically fallacious.

I have put absolutely no value in the "freedom" To die without a chance or to be a marauding killing machine. if some one's freedom has to be limited to avoid either of those I'm all for it.

But why do YOU get to choose for them? If people would rather die than live like animals (and many orcs undoubtedly WOULD make that choice), how incredibly arrogant is it not only to make a choice for them, but to then go and say you made the morally right choice, and that you had no other option. The gall.

You are aware Terenas' suggestion is still housing them for a time right? that's still with in the 3 options.

Only because for you, "housing" only means one thing, and that allows you to take something other people would say are different things and pretend it's the same thing. See above.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I'm not sure you actually understand the difference between "doesn't happen" and "can't happen".


How do you know no other orc could have freed them? We know Thrall happened, but how do you know no one else could have done something similar? Kind of related to the above point in that there's a big difference between "no one else did it" and "no one else could have possibly done it". Those are NOT the same thing.

We know the situation surround the orcs we know how far a single orc had to go to break there norms and we know that no other orc got close to that mind set and still haven't even after 20+ years on azeroth.

it's thrall or no other possibility.

No. When I use "housing" I'm not talking about concentration camps. When YOU use it you do. The problem is that you THEN try to attack points I make that involve MY use of "housing" by equating them to YOUR use of "housing", i.e. suggesting that any form of resettlement would have required not MY kind of "housing" (food and shelter) but YOUR kind of "housing" (concentration camps) - which is not only not the point I was making, but is also grossly fallacious. THAT is the problem, not the fact that you decide to use "housing" interchangeably with "concentration camps" (which is morally and rhetorically problematic but doesn't in itself interfere with my point unless it does what I explained here).


Neither am I, but I also don't pretend that all "housing" is the exact same and can be treated the same, like you are doing. That's why I use different words, and you use the same word.

Still don't care about word games, It's all the same thing thousands of orcs held against there will or a significant portion of time, they could be treated better then they were they could be treated worse but at the end of the day it's still them being held against there will and at the mercy of the alliance.

How do you know it would have taken them 8 years if left to their own devices? How do you know they wouldn't have rallied much faster when necessity hit, and they didn't have to deal with the reality of a humiliating imprisonment? You're saying that everything would have gone the exact same regardless of whether they were in concentration camps, or whether they had their own settlement somewhere. How do you know that?

It was a magic effect they weren't just sad they were being held, said magic effect took years to clear and even some free orcs under grom fell under it's effects as well.

And yet somehow we got to a good place in the end, so clearly it was possible to redeem the Horde. How do you know other paths couldn't also have led to that end? We know nothing about roads not taken, you can't simply conclude that there WERE NONE just because they weren't obvious or considered. We know what happened; we don't know what could have happened. You go from "this happened" to "therefore nothing else could have happened", which is logically fallacious.

we know what the other paths were, Grom went down one, Blackhand junior went down another, we know that thrall is a one off that the orcs are eager and willing to revert to how they were before him a the drop of a hat even years later.

But why do YOU get to choose for them? If people would rather die than live like animals (and many orcs undoubtedly WOULD make that choice), how incredibly arrogant is it not only to make a choice for them, but to then go and say you made the morally right choice, and that you had no other option. The gall.

the choice fell upon the King to kill them, house them, or let them keep rampaging he gets to choose for them because they gave away that capability when they took demon blood and failed a planet wide genocide falling at his mercy, and he absolutely made the only morally right choice and had no other options.

You can say taking no action and letting them die on the shores of the barrens is better because they have "freedom" but that's just choosing to kill them and an excuse to clear your conscious.

Only because for you, "housing" only means one thing, and that allows you to take something other people would say are different things and pretend it's the same thing. See above.

You may give your bird a bigger cage and pretend it is free but at the end of the day it is still a caged bird.

[Biomega]

Still don't care about word games, It's all the same thing

Yes, yes, we get it, you think concentration camps are just "housing", and you're sticking your fingers in your ears going LALALALA real loud so you don't have to hear the rest of humanity, who think we have different words for different things for a reason. Cool beans.

It was a magic effect they weren't just sad they were being held, said magic effect took years to clear and even some free orcs under grom fell under it's effects as well.

We have no idea how much of it was ACTUALLY the fel blood, and how much of it was psychological. We have seen fel blood affect people very differently depending on their mental state - like Grom, thanks for bringing that up. You have no basis for your claim, in fact you've provided an example that demonstrates it's NOT as easy as "that's just how fel blood works" since Grom proves it works differently depending on your attitude and willpower.

we know what the other paths were, Grom went down one, Blackhand junior went down another, we know that thrall is a one off that the orcs are eager and willing to revert to how they were before him a the drop of a hat even years later.

We know what the three paths were, we don't know those were the ONLY paths. That's my point. You keep making the same mistake of looking at what happened, and concluding that was the only thing that could have happened.

the choice fell upon the King to kill them, house them, or let them keep rampaging he gets to choose for them because they gave away that capability when they took demon blood and failed a planet wide genocide falling at his mercy, and he absolutely made the only morally right choice and had no other options.

As demonstrated exhaustively at this point, there WERE other options, they simply decided against them. You somehow go from "let's not do that" to "this can't be done", but that's par for the course for you at this point, I suppose

You can say taking no action and letting them die on the shores of the barrens is better because they have "freedom" but that's just choosing to kill them and an excuse to clear your conscious.

Except you don't know that'd kill them. That's just speculation. And even if it HAD, you could have given them the choice. Many might have preferred death over life as a caged beast fighting for the amusement of humans. They took that choice away from them, then patted themselves on the back for how great they were for doing that.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Yes, yes, we get it, you think concentration camps are just "housing", and you're sticking your fingers in your ears going LALALALA real loud so you don't have to hear the rest of humanity, who think we have different words for different things for a reason. Cool beans.

Yup, Not gonna pretend that there's a meaningful difference between the camps and any other type of forced placement and holdings.

The camps should have gotten the treatment they were meant to and lorderon shouldn't have let blackmore pull one over on them but thats it.

We have no idea how much of it was ACTUALLY the fel blood, and how much of it was psychological. We have seen fel blood affect people very differently depending on their mental state - like Grom, thanks for bringing that up. You have no basis for your claim, in fact you've provided an example that demonstrates it's NOT as easy as "that's just how fel blood works" since Grom proves it works differently depending on your attitude and willpower.

Grom put off the effects by never stopping his war and even some of his forces fell to it, So sure if you want to go with the let them wipe out the alliance option then some camp orcs would have also been "fine".

We know what the three paths were, we don't know those were the ONLY paths. That's my point. You keep making the same mistake of looking at what happened, and concluding that was the only thing that could have happened.

it's not the only thing that could happen, the alliance could have also been wiped out by a resurgent horde lead by grom as he scoops up the camp orcs.

As demonstrated exhaustively at this point, there WERE other options, they simply decided against them. You somehow go from "let's not do that" to "this can't be done", but that's par for the course for you at this point, I suppose

the only thing you demonstrated is that you'd take the kill them all option but would try and wash your hands of the blood.

Except you don't know that'd kill them. That's just speculation. And even if it HAD, you could have given them the choice. Many might have preferred death over life as a caged beast fighting for the amusement of humans. They took that choice away from them, then patted themselves on the back for how great they were for doing that.

You can go with giving people the freedom to die, Ill choose holding them so that they can live every time.

[Biomega]

You can go with giving people the freedom to die, Ill choose holding them so that they can live every time.

I kinda figured you would, since you're also cool with concentration camps being just "housing".

That's how slavery was justified IRL, too, by the way - "we make their choices for them, they'll be better off with what we choose for them".

You keep going that way, I'mma just head the other direction. Your world is not a place I want to touch, no offense.