Having us kill civilians in Oriath Square is tasteless.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Yes Boem, I understand the difference between the meanings of the words "citizen" and "civilian." One does not exclude the other.

Do you honestly not know what a civilian is, or are you just pretending not to for some reason?

In the rules of war they can actually exclude one another.

For example a soldier fighting is a citizen of a country but he is not a civilian.

Um, no. He is not a civilian, because he is a combatant.

His being a citizen is NOT what excludes him from being a civilian.

His being a civilian (if he were one) would NOT exclude him from being a citizen.

Your thinking here is completely wrong, sorry. The two categories do not exclude one another.

EDIT: OK, I just realized that perhaps you don't understand the word "exclude." If you look that word up and learn it, it will probably clear up your confusion.

"

Which is why i thought perhaps you werent differentiating between those two and atributing "innocence" to them, when both citizen and frightened don't mark that atribute.

Peace,

-Boem-

Wait, you aren't actually making the argument that "they aren't civilians," are you?

You used the therm civilian in your earlier post, when they are called citizens.

And a citizen can be a part of an armed force, but a civilian cannot. Thus the therms can exclude one another when discussing armed forces.
As a practical example, the public is far more outraged by civilians dying then they are by soldiers dying.(both are citizens but soldiers arent civilians, thus an exclusion occurs, since they cannot claim to belong to that group)

I am wondering if you perceive them as innocent was why i raised the point.
Because "frightened citizen" doesn't imply innocence.

I simply found it interesting why you went with civilian when its not the same thing as a citizen in a war context.
I thought perhaps you did it unintentionally and it might shed light on why you consider it tasteless.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

Please look up what bad-faith argumentation means Fruz.

It's entirely within the narative representation of the characters we play to not be bothered by killing "frightened citizens".

I really do not need to.

That second part is highly subjective, there is nothing that would indicate that any of the characters are sociopaths, that they would kill anybody without a afterthough.
Some have specific cruel lines when killing monsters, can you make a difference between monsters and "frightened citizens" ?

"

Boem wrote:

You need to look up the difference between a citizen and a civilian, because i assume your confusion derives from this conflation of definitions in relation to the narrative.

And now splitting hair ? really ?
Canyou say with a straight that those frightened citizens are not civilians ?

ffs ...

"

Boem wrote:

In the rules of war they can actually exclude one another.

For example a soldier fighting is a citizen of a country but he is not a civilian.

What is this if not bad faith ?

soldier and civilian are mutually exclusive, well no shit ! the notion on citizenship is a completely different thing ...

(a soldier can be a citizen)

"

Boem wrote:

Wait, you aren't actually making the argument that "they aren't civilians," are you?

It does not seem genuine to me at this point, but I think he is.

"

Boem wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Wait, you aren't actually making the argument that "they aren't civilians," are you?

You used the therm civilian in your earlier post, when they are called citizens.

And a citizen can be a part of an armed force, but a civilian cannot. Thus the therms can exclude one another when discussing armed forces.
As a practical example, the public is far more outraged by civilians dying then they are by soldiers dying.(both are citizens but soldiers arent civilians, thus an exclusion occurs, since they cannot claim to belong to that group)

I am wondering if you perceive them as innocent was why i raised the point.
Because "frightened citizen" doesn't imply innocence.

I simply found it interesting why you went with civilian when its not the same thing as a citizen in a war context.
I thought perhaps you did it unintentionally and it might shed light on why you consider it tasteless.

Peace,

-Boem-

And my suspicion is confirmed.

You are wrong. It is that simple. Soldier and civilian are mutually exclusive words. Citizen and civilian are not. If you want to understand why, then look up "mutual exclusion" and learn what it is.

Until then, it will be impossible to discuss this topic coherently with you. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be mean, but it's true.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Wait, you aren't actually making the argument that "they aren't civilians," are you?

You used the therm civilian in your earlier post, when they are called citizens.

And a citizen can be a part of an armed force, but a civilian cannot. Thus the therms can exclude one another when discussing armed forces.
As a practical example, the public is far more outraged by civilians dying then they are by soldiers dying.(both are citizens but soldiers arent civilians, thus an exclusion occurs, since they cannot claim to belong to that group)

I am wondering if you perceive them as innocent was why i raised the point.
Because "frightened citizen" doesn't imply innocence.

I simply found it interesting why you went with civilian when its not the same thing as a citizen in a war context.
I thought perhaps you did it unintentionally and it might shed light on why you consider it tasteless.

Peace,

-Boem-

And my suspicion is confirmed.

You are wrong. It is that simple. Soldier and civilian are mutually exclusive words. Citizen and civilian are not. If you want to understand why, then look up "mutual exclusion" and learn what it is.

Until then, it will be impossible to discuss this topic coherently with you. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be mean, but it's true.

You don't even realize what i am saying and you say your suspicion is confirmed.

They are called "frightened citizen" which means they "could" be part of an armed force before we arrive on the scene and find them frightened in chaos and running away.

If they were called "frightened civilian" that option would be excluded.

You used the therm "civilian" instead of "citizen" not me, so i was wondering if you considered that option or it was a slip while typing.

It was a question, there is no need for suspicion or assumptions, you either say "yes" or "no" or elaborate.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Fruz wrote:

Spoiler

"

Boem wrote:

Please look up what bad-faith argumentation means Fruz.

It's entirely within the narative representation of the characters we play to not be bothered by killing "frightened citizens".

I really do not need to.

That second part is highly subjective, there is nothing that would indicate that any of the characters are sociopaths, that they would kill anybody without a afterthough.
Some have specific cruel lines when killing monsters, can you make a difference between monsters and "frightened citizens" ?

"

Boem wrote:

You need to look up the difference between a citizen and a civilian, because i assume your confusion derives from this conflation of definitions in relation to the narrative.

And now splitting hair ? really ?
Canyou say with a straight that those frightened citizens are not civilians ?

ffs ...

"

Boem wrote:

In the rules of war they can actually exclude one another.

For example a soldier fighting is a citizen of a country but he is not a civilian.

What is this if not bad faith ?

soldier and civilian are mutually exclusive, well no shit ! the notion on citizenship is a completely different thing ...

(a soldier can be a citizen)

"

Boem wrote:

Wait, you aren't actually making the argument that "they aren't civilians," are you?

It does not seem genuine to me at this point, but I think he is.

Is it helpfull when you just repeat what i typed in my posts?

I just explained the categorical difference between the two therms only for you to repeat them to accomplish???? i got no clue.

And can i make the argument they aren't "civilians", obviously i can, they are named "frightened citizens" not "frightened civilians".
It's not even a far fetched argument, because it just "is".

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : if you don't understand the difference between them being tagged as civilians granting the OP more justification for calling it "tasteless" rather then citizens which "could" still imply a connection to a military unit before we reach the scene then thats fine.

edit2 : Fruz i also like the fact you never actually read the backstory of any of the characters. Which is quite apparent by the way you say they aren't sociopaths that wouldn't kill randoms without an afterthought.

The shadow is "literally" an assasin for hire before he reaches the shores of wreaclast.

Just spend a couple of minutes on the wiki, cheers.

CIVILIAN an CIITIZEN are two UNRELATED NOTIONS

Is it big enough for you ?


Absolutely nothing shows that they are not civilians and pretty much everthing leads to think that they are.

The rest does not matter, period.

Is that clear enough now ?
Or do you habe more hair to split ?
Do you enjoy doing that ?

"

Fruz wrote:

Absolutely nothing shows that they are not civilians and pretty much everthing leads to think that they are.

Let me guess, because they are frightened and run away?

/rolls eye

Peace,

-Boem-

Give it up, Fruz. Remember what I said about Boem's arguments becoming more chaotic and nonsensical once he becomes emotionally invested and desperate to "win?" He'll grasp at anything.

You are seeing it in action.

(Edit: see below for another example of him reaching. Equating bandits with frightened citizens this time.)

Just let him eat his candy alone. It only distracts from the actual meaningful posts that exist in this thread.

You are making the argument its tasteless.

So we could ask in return "how is pressing the kill option for the bandit choice not tasteless".

They don't harm you within the camp and its an arbitrary choice which tribe gets to survive or if you just slay all of them.

But you as the exile make an active choice to kill non-combative npc's.

I just find your argument stupid within the context of the game so it's amusing to find where it derives from.

Emotional or "winning" has very little to do with it, just trying to understand your reasoning given all other events during the campaign.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : apparently stating another example in the game where you actively choose to kill non-combative npc's is "reaching".

Makes sense, i like the consistency.

Actually scrap that, the bandits is more tasteless then the oriath event from a moral and ethical stance since you actively choose the action.
At least in the oriath scene you can fallback on a colateral damage/friendly fire argument in therms of morality and ethics.

Boem, you had the best argument possible, IMHO. You seem to have gone too far now.

You seem to be arguing that the frightened citizens are not civilians. You've been asked this specifically but did not answer that specific question, I don't think. If you are arguing that then you have gone to far, IMHO. The bandit analogy is a false equivalence.

Please note that making a good argument is a fine goal that you have already reached. That does not mean though that everyone has to be swayed into agreeing with you. I think it really boils down to personal opinion. I consider this topic being discussed to be a minor weakness in the presentation of the Path of Exile story. I accept that everyone does not have to agree with that opinion.

Maybe what is needed here is for winners to be announced? If so I hereby declare that Boem and gibbousmoon have won this thread! CONGRATULATIONS!