Alloran

[Chad32]

Killing 100 people is worse than killing 1 person. It just is. I mean you can say each life is proceless, and that they are all equal, but 1 does not equal 100. Nor does 1 million equal 1 billion.

I have another possible plot hole for you. If Alloran saw them as a threat before they betrayed the Andalites, why wouldn't he take them seriously when they invaded the HB Homeworld? Why did he take them lightly by coming late, and with a small force?

[MoppingBear]

so say you are walking past 2 sets of train tracks.  you see 5 kids playing on one of them.  on the other tracks, another kid is walking alone.  you see a train coming towards the 5 kids, none of the kids see it since they all have their backs turned.  you are too far for them to hear you, but you are close enough to flip a switch and send the train down the other set of tracks, to kill the one kid.  what do you do?

[Chad32]

Save the five kids.

[Dameg]

^^' I see but it's different that what I wanted to say...

Anyway, I'd like to understand why Voodooqueen treated me as a Nazi. I just want a quiet and simple explanation. You can say what you want about me, but tell me why you said that.

[Toc']

so say you are walking past 2 sets of train tracks.  you see 5 kids playing on one of them.  on the other tracks, another kid is walking alone.  you see a train coming towards the 5 kids, none of the kids see it since they all have their backs turned.  you are too far for them to hear you, but you are close enough to flip a switch and send the train down the other set of tracks, to kill the one kid.  what do you do?

It depends. Is the lonely kid a genius?
 

[Azguard]

is the lonely kid a ridiculously good looking kid? wait. never mind. wrong thread.


anyway, I agree with Dameg on Andalite ethics. They are not human. They don't think like us. Their set of morals and ethics are completely different than us. Like I said, killing a million versus killing a billion could be the same to them as long its killing them and not hurting us. It might be equivalent to killing a few million ants versus killing a few billion ants would both be beneficial if it proved that human lives were saved.

[Dameg]

Thank you, Azure. You understood my point.

Now I'm still waiting for an explanation from Voodooqueen.

[MoppingBear]

so say you are walking past 2 sets of train tracks.  you see 5 kids playing on one of them.  on the other tracks, another kid is walking alone.  you see a train coming towards the 5 kids, none of the kids see it since they all have their backs turned.  you are too far for them to hear you, but you are close enough to flip a switch and send the train down the other set of tracks, to kill the one kid.  what do you do?

It depends. Is the lonely kid a genius?
 

the lonely kid is smart enough to have checked which track is the active one, and walk on the one that wouldn't be used.

[Toc']

Well, obviously, given what you write
the smart kid is the one who doesn't stay alone 

[Chad32]

I think we're going by the assumption that they are all equal, by virtue of all being Human. right? Instead of judging them in other ways like intelligence or physical fitness, or whatever.

[Toc']

We were being sarcastic.
Having dark humour.

Otherwise people can see things differently.
Some will think " I'm gonna save 5 kids" but some will think "I can't kill a kid".
It might depend on how "rational" the person is.

[voodooqueen126]

Thank you, Azure. You understood my point.

Now I'm still waiting for an explanation from Voodooqueen.

sorry i have been busy lately...
Of course you're not a nazi! but I have heard/read a biography of Diana Mosley where, when she was really pressed and shown a huge amount of visual evidence for the Holocaust said "Well it doesn't matter if Hitler killed 6 people or 6 million because people are still people." This is quite common in Holocaust deniers: they say that the numbers are exaggerated but that 600 people are just as bad as 6 million. Of course they don"t really believe what they are saying... Which leads me to a common feature of leftwing politics: moral equivalency, which is basically saying 'well our side did bad things too, both sides are equally wrong, insert culture specific examples here." it is a common debating tactic used by pacifists and terrorists alike: that a minor failure to confirm to the letter of the geneva convention on the part of western nations/democracies is just as bad as the massive abuses perpetrated by authoritarian regimes.
Now Alloran did more than a minor failure in terms of ethics, but in the grand scheme of things (galaxy wide enslavement) pretty minor...
On the train track example: you are more likely to save someones life if you are of the same race/similar looking/distantly related, called the selfish gene theory (that acts of altruism are actually ways to increase our genes chances for survival-if someone is similar to us they have the same genes...to summarise a complicated idea badly) spooky isn't it.

[Dameg]

Thank you, Azure. You understood my point.

Now I'm still waiting for an explanation from Voodooqueen.

sorry i have been busy lately...
Of course you're not a nazi! but I have heard/read a biography of Diana Mosley where, when she was really pressed and shown a huge amount of visual evidence for the Holocaust said "Well it doesn't matter if Hitler killed 6 people or 6 million because people are still people." This is quite common in Holocaust deniers: they say that the numbers are exaggerated but that 600 people are just as bad as 6 million. Of course they don"t really believe what they are saying... Which leads me to a common feature of leftwing politics: moral equivalency, which is basically saying 'well our side did bad things too, both sides are equally wrong, insert culture specific examples here." it is a common debating tactic used by pacifists and terrorists alike: that a minor failure to confirm to the letter of the geneva convention on the part of western nations/democracies is just as bad as the massive abuses perpetrated by authoritarian regimes.
Now Alloran did more than a minor failure in terms of ethics, but in the grand scheme of things (galaxy wide enslavement) pretty minor...
On the train track example: you are more likely to save someones life if you are of the same race/similar looking/distantly related, called the selfish gene theory (that acts of altruism are actually ways to increase our genes chances for survival-if someone is similar to us they have the same genes...to summarise a complicated idea badly) spooky isn't it.

So you suppose I said that but didn't think what I said... like this woman.
Some people here said that destroying a species with only few millions members isn't so important, but destroying a species with few billions members is important. I think that destroying a species, whatever the number, is important, because the species won't re-appear after that. You destroyed them, end!
And next time you do a stupid comparison between 2 persons who have nothing in common, be careful not to insult one of them.
Be careful, Voodooqueen, I don't really like your posts, and I am not alone to feel uncomfortable reading you.

[voodooqueen126]

Vous nais pas Diana Mosley! You're not a hypocrite! Nor was I accusing you of being a hypocrite, rather I was accusing you of moral equivalency. You, unlike D Mosley who said things that she didn't believe in (like Diana Mosley who presumably said that to stop people from hounding her about being well a Nazi when it was obviously a evil idealogy).  In fact going over your posts over all (on other discussions etc) I can be certain that you do believe what you said about the quantum virus on hork-bajir being the same as blowing up Earth... To me this is seems like  equivalency, which I disagree with on principle. However you do raise a valid point:

So you suppose I said that but didn't think what I said... like this woman.
Some people here said that destroying a species with only few millions members isn't so important, but destroying a species with few billions members is important. I think that destroying a species, whatever the number, is important, because the species won't re-appear after that. You destroyed them, end!
And next time you do a stupid comparison between 2 persons who have nothing in common, be careful not to insult one of them.
Be careful, Voodooqueen, I don't really like your posts, and I am not alone to feel uncomfortable reading you.

namely that the destruction of a whole species is different from  "killing 600 is the same as 6 million type moral-equivalency". Say a human government kills 60 million humans (like Chairman Mao) however because humans are a replacable commodity and this will not cause their total extinction, this is not as bad as killing say 10 million hork-bajir (causing the extinction of hork-bajir or near extinction) because those hork-bajir can never be replaced unlike chairman Mao's 60 million victims... If i am misinterpretating you tell me?  It is not nice because killing 60 million humans should be far worse than killing 10 million hork-bajir, but because hork-bajir are a species, rather than a group within human society at large, the damage is irreversible?
Back to the problem at large: is killing 10 million hork-bajir just as bad as killing 6 billion humans (causing extinction to both). Well using Dameg's very valid point: Because the extinction of a whole species is irreversible, their respective population is irrelevant. Therefore, Alloran's use of the quantum virus is just as bad as 'quarantining Earth' in book 54.
However there are some important differences to consider: using a biological weapon will inevitable leave some survivors, as a few people are always immune to a disease. Nor would this have harmed the various animals, trees, Arn cultural artefacts and plants sharing the hork-bajir homeworld, moreover Alloran was more focused on number reduction and reducing the overall number of potential hosts...
Blowing up Earth would cause total extinction to all humans and would leave no survivors.  It would also destroy all of earth's animals, culture (buildings like the louvre etc) and plants. So the damage would be even more irreversible.
I am terribly sorry to have made you uncomfortable. :'(
Chad, I reckon Alloran who realised early on that the yeerks were a threat actually volunteered or was the only person who allowed himself to be conscripted to lead such a mission. but that it was sheer arrogance of the Andalite government that caused them to only send Alloran and a small task force.

[Dameg]

1- Now you say I'm different to that Nazi, but you compared me to her as I was the same. Don't do any more this kind of mistake.

2- I don't say that killing 6 millions of Humans, even if the species is far to be destroyed, is acceptable. I would never they such a thing!
But you understood my point about species.

3- You're a little wrong about something at the end. Well, take a true example: I heard that leopards almost disappeared, thousands years ago, and even if they're still there, they're now victim of too much inbreeding. They become weaker and weaker as the time goes and will probably disappear totally one day. Now, take the same thing with a species who is almost destroyed because of the quantum virus. I know that the Hork-Bajirs were "made", but... Still, if a species is close to disappear, the last members won't have enough gene to reform a strong species. We had a question at school who could be about the beginning of Remnants (other series by Applegate): if the humanity was destroyed, you can save only 6 people, we give you 10 persons, who will you send? Some people said "the most intelligent", some other "the people who can have the more children", but I couldn't answer: to me, it was totally stupid, because 6 persons are useless to continue a species, and I couldn't decide who need to be saved! The teacher couldn't make me answer. I just can't decide.
And it's why I can't agree with you when you say that smart people must be saved more than others, or that the "stupid" people who make a lot of children are better. I don't think I can judge the other Humans like that, and who are you to judge the others?!
Something else, please think about it: "intelligence" and "knowledge" are 2 different things. Some people who are poor can be very intelligent, but don't have any way to go to school and have knowledge. Some other people are quite rich, can pay the best universities and will have a lot of knowledge, but it doesn't mean they're intelligent. To me, intelligence permit to understand the world, understand the other people and think by yourself. Knowledge comes more easily when you're intelligent, and it's also a way to improve your intelligence, but it's different.

PS: Well, it's one of my longest message on RAF, please applaud :p