For example using your last sentence "nd you moralizers lose your credibility by denying that other people have a valid right to protect their own existence. In other words, no one's right to exist takes precedence over your own. You have the right to kill anyone who endangers your existance, as does Rand.", I think you would have a hard time proving to me that the innocent people in Graendal's palace, in the Seanchan headquarters, or the camp followers of the Borderland Army were a threat to Rand's existence.
They were adhering to people who were. Guilt by association. Camp followers take it in the neck when the army they follow loses. Fact of life, and well-known to people in cultures where they have camp followers. They accepted the risk when they joined up with the army, or got employed by the Seanchan in their headquarters. The captives of Graendal (or the Seanchan) are just too bad. You can't allow evil to go on simply because someone who doesn't deserve it might have something bad happen. That is the whole issue with trying to justify the value of taking many innocent lives to destroy one, such as, Graendal's. In these cases, the collateral damage wasn't going to be limited to people that threatened Rand's existence.
So? He isn't the one putting them in that position. He has no obligation to risk himself or his followers to save them. He is not taking their lives - they are dying as a side effect of a justified action. The one who brought them there bears the responsibility for their deaths, that is, Graendal.In another sentence you say "The state or fate of one's soul is strictly a private matter, and irrelevant to the justification of their homicide.", but this makes no sense, because Rand, an outside agent, is making a decision that transgresses what you already assert to be "a private matter" - in this case, Rand himself justified their deaths in the book, yet you claim that this is irrelevant.
That is not what I was referring to. I meant that whatever happens to them in the afterlife, whether heaven, hell, rebirth, nirvanna or utter anihilation, has no bearing on the justification of their deaths. Unless Rand is causing one or the other of those things to happen (which is impossible in relevant real world religion, and unsubstantiated in WoT), the only thing about which he need concern himself is the temporal justification, which you seem to be conceding. The whole point of this post was whether Rand was justified yet the nature of the homicide in question makes the fate of their souls a crucial part of this justification. If he had used a fireball, then it would have been irrelevant. He used balefire, though, which directly acts on their souls.
a. No it doesn't.
b. Not his problem.
Balefire does NOT remove your soul, it simply destroys your thread in time. RJ said that the reason why a Forsaken killed by balefire cannot be resurrected is because the time for resurrecting him has already passed. It's like the old joke "May you be in heaven an hour before the devil knows you're dead." In their case, the Forsaken have passed beyond the point of transmigration before the Dark One has a chance to grab their souls to stuff in a new body. If it was as simple and obvious as the destruction of that soul for all time, why would RJ have needed to give that answer, when he could have made the simple statement - "Their souls are destroyed."
Thus the state and fate of these soul's in relation to the worth of killing Graendal need to be confronted.
No, they don't. They were NOT destroyed, and whatever happens to them in the afterlife is none of Rand's doing.
Cannoli
"Sometimes unhinged, sometimes unfair, always entertaining"
- The Crownless
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Deus Vult!
"Sometimes unhinged, sometimes unfair, always entertaining"
- The Crownless
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Deus Vult!
Rand the psycho?
- 06/01/2010 02:53:30 AM
1660 Views
I cannot follow your assumptions.
- 06/01/2010 04:07:33 AM
1064 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions.
- 06/01/2010 04:59:12 AM
894 Views
Wait!
- 06/01/2010 05:10:33 AM
1019 Views
Re: Wait!
- 06/01/2010 05:20:02 AM
925 Views
Re: Wait!
- 06/01/2010 05:58:00 AM
897 Views
Re: Wait!
- 06/01/2010 11:46:13 AM
847 Views
I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire.
- 06/01/2010 07:30:56 AM
971 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire.
- 06/01/2010 03:32:24 PM
877 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire.
- 06/01/2010 09:52:47 PM
947 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire.
- 06/01/2010 11:19:56 PM
855 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire.
- 07/01/2010 12:21:50 AM
922 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire.
- 07/01/2010 12:56:26 AM
856 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire.
- 07/01/2010 01:46:16 AM
914 Views
Of course, I agree with you, esp since I just put forth the idea you support earlier in the thread.
- 11/01/2010 04:58:26 PM
1329 Views
Rand crossed a line
- 06/01/2010 02:36:42 PM
961 Views
Doesn't Balefire remove your thread from the Pattern permanently?
- 06/01/2010 02:55:38 PM
941 Views
No, RJ stated balefired people can be reborn. *NM*
- 06/01/2010 03:26:00 PM
453 Views
But not in this turning of the Wheel. So they'd miss out on MANY lifetimes.
- 06/01/2010 05:46:04 PM
871 Views
No, balefire just kills you backwards in time. It is not super-death. *NM*
- 06/01/2010 09:58:18 PM
481 Views
LOL ... super-death!
- 06/01/2010 11:59:31 PM
819 Views
Yes it was.
- 06/01/2010 06:51:15 PM
931 Views
Re: Yes it was.
- 06/01/2010 07:16:14 PM
851 Views
Re: Yes it was.
- 06/01/2010 08:58:40 PM
894 Views
Re: Yes it was.
- 06/01/2010 10:47:11 PM
888 Views
let me ask the question in a different way
- 06/01/2010 11:26:43 PM
894 Views
Re: let me ask the question in a different way
- 06/01/2010 11:40:56 PM
885 Views
actually that quote supports my thoughts
- 06/01/2010 11:50:40 PM
910 Views
Re: actually that quote supports my thoughts
- 07/01/2010 12:10:07 AM
838 Views
yet it could take him some undetermined amount of time to figure out your dead?
- 07/01/2010 12:34:34 AM
827 Views
Re: yet it could take him some undetermined amount of time to figure out your dead?
- 07/01/2010 01:13:40 AM
801 Views
Meh. I just think advocating mass-murder is the opposite direction RJ meant for this to take.
- 07/01/2010 12:00:44 AM
935 Views
Sigh. What mass murder?
- 07/01/2010 12:15:01 AM
785 Views
In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully.
- 07/01/2010 03:14:32 PM
860 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully.
- 07/01/2010 03:57:43 PM
869 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully.
- 07/01/2010 07:13:21 PM
885 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully.
- 07/01/2010 07:52:24 PM
830 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully.
- 07/01/2010 08:56:43 PM
897 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully.
- 07/01/2010 09:26:01 PM
846 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully.
- 07/01/2010 09:30:45 PM
783 Views
Personally I'm kind of sick of Rand being the only person killing FS!
- 07/01/2010 09:42:57 PM
953 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully.
- 07/01/2010 09:56:02 PM
888 Views
OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol:
- 07/01/2010 10:30:19 PM
874 Views
Yes. Anakin Skywalker all over again
- 06/01/2010 11:01:02 PM
967 Views
Meh
- 06/01/2010 11:30:24 PM
805 Views
The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them!
- 06/01/2010 11:33:32 PM
813 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them!
- 06/01/2010 11:50:37 PM
894 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them!
- 06/01/2010 11:55:03 PM
854 Views
I do have to guiltily say, though, that if Rand had balefired the Seanchan and THEN became good...
- 07/01/2010 12:03:20 AM
861 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them!
- 07/01/2010 12:23:11 AM
801 Views
I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing
- 07/01/2010 12:52:25 AM
811 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing
- 07/01/2010 01:24:32 AM
877 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing
- 07/01/2010 03:33:52 PM
825 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing
- 07/01/2010 04:28:18 PM
965 Views
right cause all Generals are so well versed in medical conditions 
- 07/01/2010 09:44:09 PM
916 Views
- 07/01/2010 09:44:09 PM
916 Views
Nice way to avoid the argument.
- 07/01/2010 10:00:17 PM
864 Views
I'm just done talking in circles. You seem to think that because people
- 07/01/2010 11:53:05 PM
905 Views
I concede
- 07/01/2010 01:09:11 AM
804 Views
You weren't wrong overall, but there were some serious flaws in your reasoning.
- 07/01/2010 02:43:17 AM
911 Views
Morals are subjective anyhow,
- 07/01/2010 06:23:09 AM
894 Views
Re: Morals are subjective anyhow,
- 07/01/2010 03:23:59 PM
814 Views
I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention
- 09/01/2010 12:00:02 AM
893 Views
Your assertions weaken your overall argument.
- 11/01/2010 04:47:10 PM
784 Views
Re: Your assertions weaken your overall argument.
- 18/01/2010 12:49:26 PM
829 Views
You are treating Graendal's "pets" as though they were enemy combatants
- 07/01/2010 03:40:03 PM
946 Views
Like I give a damn what a group of professional killers would do.
- 08/01/2010 11:39:11 PM
810 Views
Graendal captured these people as part of the Shadows offensive, Operation Chaos Rules
- 09/01/2010 12:00:40 AM
1118 Views
Well, I still liked your first argument. It's a freaking war. The argument ...
- 07/01/2010 07:08:53 PM
846 Views