PSA: Genocide is wrong

Story Forum
Holy !@#$in' %^-*, you don't say?

Thank you for bringing this new, provocative perspective to the SF.
The point was to take out a strategic threat to the horde, not to eliminate night elves as a race. The tree could've been filled with an equal part of every alliance race and the horde would've still attacked it (and likely burned it).

People throwing around genocide so loosely is going to soften the horror of real genocide.
08/11/2018 01:17 PMPosted by Repainted
The point was to take out a strategic threat to the horde, not to eliminate night elves as a race. The tree could've been filled with an equal part of every alliance race and the horde would've still attacked it (and likely burned it).

People throwing around genocide so loosely is going to soften the horror of real genocide.


Blizzard has literally called it a genocide
08/11/2018 01:17 PMPosted by Repainted
The point was to take out a strategic threat to the horde, not to eliminate night elves as a race. The tree could've been filled with an equal part of every alliance race and the horde would've still attacked it (and likely burned it).

People throwing around genocide so loosely is going to soften the horror of real genocide.


Having an ulterior motive for genocide doesn't disqualify it from being genocide.

The Trail of Tears happened because the USA wanted the Native American peoples lands, but it was still a genocide.
i think that blizzard is going to have it revealed that sylvanas was deceived/controlled by the old gods and then we're gonna have a giant "yaaaas queen slay" moment at the end of the expac where sylvanas defeats this old god and is cleared of all accountability (obviously she "defeats" it as part of the final raid where the players do most of the actual fighting)
08/11/2018 01:52 PMPosted by Relandis
i think that blizzard is going to have it revealed that sylvanas was deceived/controlled by the old gods and then we're gonna have a giant "yaaaas queen slay" moment at the end of the expac where sylvanas defeats this old god and is cleared of all accountability (obviously she "defeats" it as part of the final raid where the players do most of the actual fighting)

Feels like that may actually happen, and it'll be disgusting
I want Sylvanas to be held responsible for her actions
More I think about this I'm convinced the Correct term is the Massacre of Teldrassil not Night Elf Genocide.

Genocide implies you were attempting to wipe out a race and tends to require more than a single act. What happened was either about attempting to pacify a people or incite the Alliance to massive retaliation.

Mind you both are squarely in morally dark/evil alignment but one implies your trying to wipe out a whole race while the other implies you merely killed a lot of people.
08/11/2018 12:53 PMPosted by Shadowbreakr
Under that viewpoint WWII the war against al queda and most any war that did not take place solely on the defenders soil is morally wrong. That is needless to say an unrealistic viewpoint to hold and one which would result in agressive countries dominating those who merely defend. It's admirable to not want war but war is sometimes necessary to protect a nation.

[/quote]

Yes, by a rigorous definition of what it would be morally, having a war with Al Queda is morally wrong.

The problem here is you think their actions could not be morally wrong because it involves the "good guys." You're also under the impression that survival doesn't take need over morally.

Never did I say you can't or shouldn't have war. I'm stating that it's not morally right to continue war once you've successfully defended your nation that was being attacked, and go into the attackers nation with the intent to kill.
PSA: Video games are not real.
All of these kind of posts conveniently ignore that player characters have performed numerous acts genocide for relatively minor reasons.
I agree
08/11/2018 10:11 PMPosted by Dittrazkalok
08/11/2018 12:53 PMPosted by Shadowbreakr
Under that viewpoint WWII the war against al queda and most any war that did not take place solely on the defenders soil is morally wrong. That is needless to say an unrealistic viewpoint to hold and one which would result in agressive countries dominating those who merely defend. It's admirable to not want war but war is sometimes necessary to protect a nation.

Yes, by a rigorous definition of what it would be morally, having a war with Al Queda is morally wrong.

The problem here is you think their actions could not be morally wrong because it involves the "good guys." You're also under the impression that survival doesn't take need over morally.

Never did I say you can't or shouldn't have war. I'm stating that it's not morally right to continue war once you've successfully defended your nation that was being attacked, and go into the attackers nation with the intent to kill.[/quote]

That's actually not at all what I think but thanks for your insight into my opinion. The reason I think it's morally ok to go kill people who are actively at war with you is because they are actively at war with you your view on morality is frankly not realistic.

Under your style of moralitity the USA would've probably lost most any war it's been in. For that matter no nation would've been able to maintain their power for long with that kind of thinking. Wars can't be won on a purely defensive basis especially in the modern day (which wow is basically almost at with its airships tanks and guns).

This is getting pretty far off topic since my OP isn't about whether or not violence or war is justified just that genocide is not and people shouldn't try and justify it.
Guy wearing a Scarlet Crusade tabard posts a thread saying "genocide is wrong". The Scarlet Crusade, who unceasingly have been trying to genocide the Forsaken.
08/11/2018 10:35 PMPosted by Hahahahahaha
Guy wearing a Scarlet Crusade tabard posts a thread saying "genocide is wrong". The Scarlet Crusade, who unceasingly have been trying to genocide the Forsaken.


Last I checked this wasn't the RP forum so what my character is wearing has no bearing on my actual views.
08/11/2018 10:37 PMPosted by Shadowbreakr
08/11/2018 10:35 PMPosted by Hahahahahaha
Guy wearing a Scarlet Crusade tabard posts a thread saying "genocide is wrong". The Scarlet Crusade, who unceasingly have been trying to genocide the Forsaken.


Last I checked this wasn't the RP forum so what my character is wearing has no bearing on my actual views.


Does not the inverse apply then?
08/11/2018 10:32 PMPosted by Shadowbreakr
That's actually not at all what I think but thanks for your insight into my opinion. The reason I think it's morally ok to go kill people who are actively at war with you is because they are actively at war with you your view on morality is frankly not realistic.

Under your style of moralitity the USA would've probably lost most any war it's been in. For that matter no nation would've been able to maintain their power for long with that kind of thinking. Wars can't be won on a purely defensive basis especially in the modern day (which wow is basically almost at with its airships tanks and guns).


And if the USA did lose so what? Because the USA needed to win that's makes it morally right? Because a countries survival means something is morally okay?

The reason I said what I said is because you say things like this.

The reason I think it's morally ok to go kill people who are actively at war with you is because they are actively at war with you your view on morality is frankly not realistic.

Under your style of moralitity the USA would've probably lost most any war it's been in. For that matter no nation would've been able to maintain their power for long with that kind of thinking. Wars can't be won on a purely defensive basis especially in the modern day (which wow is basically almost at with its airships tanks and guns).


What does winning a war have to do with being morally correct? What does staying in power have to do with morality?

Let me ask you, if someone killed your family, and you subdue him, unarm him, is it morally okay for you to kill this person?
08/11/2018 10:43 PMPosted by Sternhammer
<span class="truncated">...</span>

Last I checked this wasn't the RP forum so what my character is wearing has no bearing on my actual views.


Does not the inverse apply then?


I'm not sure what the inverse of that would be. What I'm wearing has no bearing on my characters views? Or are you going for something more along the lines of "it's not real so it doesn't matter?" Because like my OP said I take issue with people using the same rhetorical techniques used to attempt to justify actual genocide to try and justify the events in game. I don't care about people talking about why it happened but theres a thin line that some people have been crossing that goes into the attempting to justify territory.

08/11/2018 10:32 PMPosted by Shadowbreakr
That's actually not at all what I think but thanks for your insight into my opinion. The reason I think it's morally ok to go kill people who are actively at war with you is because they are actively at war with you your view on morality is frankly not realistic.

Under your style of moralitity the USA would've probably lost most any war it's been in. For that matter no nation would've been able to maintain their power for long with that kind of thinking. Wars can't be won on a purely defensive basis especially in the modern day (which wow is basically almost at with its airships tanks and guns).


And if the USA did lose so what? Because the USA needed to win that's makes it morally right? Because a countries survival means something is morally okay?

The reason I said what I said is because you say things like this.

The reason I think it's morally ok to go kill people who are actively at war with you is because they are actively at war with you your view on morality is frankly not realistic.

Under your style of moralitity the USA would've probably lost most any war it's been in. For that matter no nation would've been able to maintain their power for long with that kind of thinking. Wars can't be won on a purely defensive basis especially in the modern day (which wow is basically almost at with its airships tanks and guns).


What does winning a war have to do with being morally correct?

Let me ask you, if someone killed your family, and you subdue him, unarm him, is it morally okay for you to kill this person?


It's not that the USA has to win but because the of the reality of the world it's considered moral for a country to defend itself to the best of its ability which can often include retalitory actions. If a country doesn't defend itself it's citizens will be killed something which I am sure you'd agree is a bad thing. I have no illusions that the USA is some sort of benevolent paragon of goodness but if a country doesn't protect itself and by extension its people there would be unnecessary innocent deaths.

As for your what if your example is somewhat inacurate. A more accurate scenario would be a person repeatedly breaking into your house and killing a family member then returning home then breaking in again and killing another family member and putting that on repeat. At a certain point merely subduing and defending yourself is no longer a viable solution. Your house is in tatters half your family is dead and it doesn't seem like the killing will stop anytime soon. In that scenario yes I think it would be totally fine and reasonable for a person to actively seek out the person killing their family and kill them. It wouldn't be ok to kill their family but it would be insane to merely sit back and let this person continue to kill your family one at time.
We'll take you more seriously when you acknowledge that the Alliance has at least attempted Genocide, and since they tried it, they are just as reprehensible. They tried once by sinking the boat with all the Goblins from kezan, another time when Garithos tried to kill blood elves just for being blood elves. Then Daelin Proudmoore trying to kill all orcs in Kalimdor. Just because they failed at their attempted genocide, doesn't make it any less evil. They were willing to try to make it happen. That is enough.
08/11/2018 10:32 PMPosted by Shadowbreakr
You're also under the impression that survival doesn't take need over morally.


Literally Sylvanas rn.
08/11/2018 11:05 PMPosted by Shadowbreakr
the world it's considered moral for a country to defend itself to the best of its ability which can often include retalitory actions.


Again this isn't morally right though. Doesn't matter how much you want it to be true. And again I'm not saying they shouldn't do such actions. But under rigorous definitions of what is morally right, this would not be the case. Read some books on ethics and morals. Look up Kant and his categorical imperative. This is how we can define what morals and ethics are. Can I ask why is it so important to you this is morally correct?

08/11/2018 11:05 PMPosted by Shadowbreakr
In that scenario yes I think it would be totally fine and reasonable for a person to actively seek out the person killing their family and kill them. It wouldn't be ok to kill their family but it would be insane to merely sit back and let this person continue to kill your family one at time.


Alright so I know now you will bend morality when it fits a desired outcome for yourself. No matter how dire your situation is, killing this person in your scenario is still morally wrong. You don't know if he's going to come back and kill a family member if you actively go out of your way to kill this person. You're making an assumption of their actions.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum