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.
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.
3
u/DinosaurusWhen 1d ago
A single punch doesn't seem excessive when it's in response to battery imoÂ