- ROBERTO jh
- |
- Fabled Heroic Member
Posted by: Gamer Whale
Posted by: ROBERTO jh
Not sure if typo or not, but the Spartans weren't created for the Covie war. They were kidnapped children built to kill rebels.
That's totally justifiable and not morally wrong.
And millions dead and planets burning and getting nuked is clearly a preferable option./sarcasm
And this is the debate. In a twisted way, you're just supporting that Traviss knew what she was talking about. The very fact you have a side, and I have another completely different perspective is the exact thing that drives the moral conflict in Glasslands. These two sides: "butchering children is wrong" and "millions dying by terrorist nukes is worse" are the sides that are being discussed in the Kilo 5 Trilogy. The real life debate just supports this.
What you have to realize about Traviss is that she does not write for anyone, she just takes a conflict and portrays how characters would react in those scenarios, even at the risk of completely disagreeing with what real people think and through that risk becoming hated; journalists don't care if you disagree with facts, they don't care if you hate them for reporting, they don't care if you shoot the messenger, they only care about the story. You may staunchly disagree that Halsey is a bastard, but characters in the universe, as well as in real life, do not. They see her as a reincarnation of Hitler even, which in a sense she is. Bioengineering children to create a superior being.
Now is that correct? Is Halsey Hitler 2.0? Personal perspective isn't correct. You say that she helped stave off civil war. Others say that her methods, and even motivations, were morally wrong. It doesn't matter who is right, only what happens as a result of the debate.
Traviss does not write her perspectives into the story--you know she takes a journalist's view of neutrality regarding writing for a premade universe--she writes the perspectives of her characters; the critical world lauds her for being able to do this.
And she's right isn't she? How can she not be when the debate in real life is the same as the one in the story. The only difference is that people here in this forum seem to think that because the debate is prominently showing the side no one considered until now (because until now, no one was in any position to truly look at it and question it as everyone who knew of it was in on it), that automatically means that the book itself is terrible. Forget the book, forget the author, put down your arrogance for a change and actually think of all of the possible outcomes, all of the possible perspectives rather than being arrogantly narrow minded that your perspective is the only right one. Focus on the debate as a character conflict and a part of the story. The author is irrelevant. What matters is the perspective views of the characters.
Posted by: anton1792
Posted by: ROBERTO jh
Not sure if typo or not, but the Spartans weren't created for the Covie war. They were kidnapped children built to kill rebels.
That's totally justifiable and not morally wrong.How is mass murder at the hands of Humans any less worse than mass murder at the hands of aliens?
It's not moral, no, but saying it is unjustified is kind of silly, especially if you are prepared to accept that it would have been had it been done to stop the Covenant instead.
And that's your perspective. Others look at it differently. Others think of the motive reason behind why she did what she did and say her motivation itself is wrong and as a result she's a dangerous person. You cannot argue that a major part of why she did what she did was because she was a scientist. Scientist first, patriot second. As a scientist, she does her research and experiments to see if they would work. So in effect, she butchered children just to see if they could become superior.
Another person did that. His name was Himmler. Like how he would freeze one twin and/or burn the other to see if they were connected.
Is it justifiable? Statistically yes. A few for the many. Funnily enough this debate has also been done before in Traviss' books. If you take the Wess'har philosophy that motive doesn't matter, only outcomes, than yes, it is perfectly justifiable.
If you take the human perspective that motivation IS important, than no, not completely. It is understandable as far as the lives saved, but the lives lost, and the lives destroyed in the process won't see it that way.
I'm sorry, but that is the human race. And as I said, the very fact this discussion is being presented here in this forum is just proving with each post that Traviss was right. No one can agree on anything, it is all perspective. What you have to do is ignore your own biases and look at the story completely objectively. Then you can say who is right and who is wrong. And as far as you're concerned, someone will be right, others will be wrong. You may see the former as a genius and the latter as a blithering idiot. But they don't see themselves that way. They and their supporters see the reverse. It is all perspective.