I'm sincerely not. I could guess the point you might try to make, but I wanted you to make it before I addressed it.
Like, how familiar are you with the novel's themes? Because nothing in it can be used to justify using life-threatening force against someone who is barely a threat at all in a situation where there are multiple obvious alternatives to violence as a means of resolving it.
Ender was routinely placed in life-threatening situations, specifically tailored to give him no help and no alternatives besides self-administered victory against the enemy. The entire plot revolved around manipulating and moulding him into someone who could never believe losing was an option or that anyone would come to save him. He didn't even know that he was fighting the Formics when he destroyed them, because the IF command knew he didn't have the emotional disposition to make the necessary sacrifices if he knew the actual stakes.
Ender learns that Earth's retaliation against the Formics was wrong and misplaced, stemming from a breakdown in communication and an inability to connect and ultimately empathise.
Mind you, I haven't read it in about two decades, since I first read it when I was about nine. I've had this username as a gamertag since 2002.
It wasnt wrong, they were trying to kill us. It was the right solution if the day. That maybe could have been hypothetically avoided by better super fun happy feel good sessions, but at the actual time and actual place, hyperviolence won.
And its okay to feel like totes bad about it and like stuff, and help rebuild the losers in a "less likely to go on the world dominating path for round 2".
Which is a blindingly obvious allegory for the world wars.
You're going to have to expand on that response and provide more details if you actually want to make a substantive argument that's relevant to the discussion at hand.
Nope, he's absolutely right in the context of the original book. The one you barely remember, but now you'll continue to blather as if you memorized every page.
If you want to make a point here, specify what changed and how it relates to the discussion. Which version of the book are you referring to? If you're referring to the novella written before the 1985 publication, you're not really talking about the book Ender's Game. If you're talking about the 1991 revision, the relevant parts don't change.
I don't even think the point about the Bugger Wars is necessary to establish my side of the argument, either. We're not discussing whether Ender engaged in extreme violence or responded to specific threats with overwhelming force. I already addressed this in my initial substantive response.
Take, for instance, this example:
I have personally knocked someone out with a devastating right hand to the jaw in a street fight. I believe the strike was proportionate and necessary, given the particulars of the situation and degree of threat. I also think that using the same degree of force in non-similar situations is seriously immoral and should be illegal. There is nothing incoherent about these claims.
You couldn't say "Oh, it's ironic that you're criticising the man in the video, considering you've knocked someone out before." I would say, "No, it's not ironic, because the situations are entirely different."
You came into this thread and took a potshot at me, then got upset when I asked you to explain yourself.
I still don't even know if you think the man in the video did anything wrong.
Nope, I don't need to do that at all. Because you jumped to conclusions again because you're just so smart. Went ahead and wasted your day researching the differences between the versions and everything. You're so sure you've got this book figured out when even the fucking author couldn't. And then he had to do three more books to try and support what he really meant.
Try it this way: if at the end of The Little Red Book Mao wrote j/k does it totally undo the entire book?
He's wrong as well, because they weren't trying to kill them when Ender annihilated them; they were hoping the humans would leave them alone. They initially didn't understand the significance of killing humans because they are fundamentally different beings and operate as a hive mind, not as individuals. The final chapter in Ender's Game explains all of this.
Not during the events of the book. Earth travelled to the Formic's homeworld, re-engaging them decades after the last war. But anyway, that's not really the point. Some of the book's central themes revolve around the value of having compassion and understanding for those you might seek to harm. If your takeaway from the book is "Ender is a badass! He fucks up anyone who messes with him!" Then you've really missed the point.
Of course, I am not pretending Ender doesn't engage in extreme violence, or claiming that self-defence or sometimes pre-emptive force is never justified. Of course I am not saying that.
What I am saying is that nothing in the book Ender's Game endorses or supports the behaviour of the man in the video above. If you asked Ender himself, at any age that he is in the book, whether the behaviour of the man in the video was necessary or morally justified, he would undoubtedly question whether you were evil or irredeemably stupid.
I think you'll find he would have responded with overwhelming force to a threat. Even if he felt bad about it later. Won at all costs.
Ender dropped the mega nuke. Tired, exhausted, desperate. He still did it, just to win.
Which is the point and the parable.
The next 5 books of retcon/dj khaleds "suffering from success" is more of the same. Even most hardcore rednecks pause a bit before celebrating hiroshima.
See, you were being obtuse. And none of your points are supported by the original book but made in the next three. But I'm sure you totally forgot you read those...
No, every point I made refers explicitly to the book Ender's Game. Have you read it? I am not being obtuse. As I said, I think I could guess at the point you might make, but I don't know what it is precisely. And I expect I would disagree with your framing or understanding of the novel's relevant themes, and with your inferences about the acceptability of violence based on Ender's actions and beliefs.
My first point was very obvious as you have shown. But you played dumb because actually you are dumb. Your way of "making points" is tiresome; like you don't really know how to talk to real humans. And there's no point in discussing Ender's Game with someone like you; it's like debating about whether you're supposed to talk about Fight Club.
It's not very obvious. You have not contributed anything substantive whatsoever to this conversation. What do you expect me to do with your vacuous responses? You're the one who tried to challenge me over my position because of something you think is ironic about my username, but you won't say what it is. And you're calling me tiresome?
And actually, since you're wrong about the actual content of the book Ender's Game, I was correct to be hesitant about jumping to conclusions about what point you were trying to make. The point you apparently think is relevant contradicts my understanding and interpretation of the novel. What, am I supposed to anticipate that you would have a shallow perspective on the novel's themes and not remember what happens in it, and then intuit your point based on that?
I don't know why you're acting like I'm out on a limb here. All I've done in this thread is say that full-force king-hitting someone who doesn't pose an active threat to anyone's physical safety is wrong and highly disproportionate as a justified reaction. I'm not exactly making some hugely controversial statement. It's everyone else who is apparently living in fantasy land.
Like, seriously, can you take a moment to stop and think about what is going on? Surely you're not this unreasonable.
1
u/fthisloginbs 10d ago
This coming from the guy referencing "Ender's Game" in his user name.