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
1938 Views
I cannot follow your assumptions.
- 06/01/2010 04:07:33 AM
1403 Views
Re: I cannot follow your assumptions.
- 06/01/2010 04:59:12 AM
1193 Views
Wait!
- 06/01/2010 05:10:33 AM
1281 Views
Re: Wait!
- 06/01/2010 05:20:02 AM
1182 Views
Re: Wait!
- 06/01/2010 05:58:00 AM
1169 Views
Re: Wait!
- 06/01/2010 11:46:13 AM
1139 Views
Re: Wait!
- 06/01/2010 03:55:01 PM
1140 Views
I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire.
- 06/01/2010 07:30:56 AM
1231 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire.
- 06/01/2010 03:32:24 PM
1156 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire.
- 06/01/2010 09:52:47 PM
1243 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire.
- 06/01/2010 11:19:56 PM
1195 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire.
- 07/01/2010 12:21:50 AM
1211 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire.
- 07/01/2010 12:56:26 AM
1140 Views
Re: I doubt he meant 'in one go' as a single stream of balefire.
- 07/01/2010 01:46:16 AM
1214 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
1655 Views
Rand crossed a line
- 06/01/2010 02:36:42 PM
1240 Views
Doesn't Balefire remove your thread from the Pattern permanently?
- 06/01/2010 02:55:38 PM
1267 Views
No, RJ stated balefired people can be reborn. *NM*
- 06/01/2010 03:26:00 PM
605 Views
But not in this turning of the Wheel. So they'd miss out on MANY lifetimes.
- 06/01/2010 05:46:04 PM
1144 Views
No, balefire just kills you backwards in time. It is not super-death. *NM*
- 06/01/2010 09:58:18 PM
608 Views
LOL ... super-death!
- 06/01/2010 11:59:31 PM
1083 Views
Yes it was.
- 06/01/2010 06:51:15 PM
1226 Views
Re: Yes it was.
- 06/01/2010 07:16:14 PM
1196 Views
Re: Yes it was.
- 06/01/2010 08:58:40 PM
1176 Views
Re: Yes it was.
- 06/01/2010 10:47:11 PM
1170 Views
let me ask the question in a different way
- 06/01/2010 11:26:43 PM
1184 Views
Re: let me ask the question in a different way
- 06/01/2010 11:40:56 PM
1153 Views
actually that quote supports my thoughts
- 06/01/2010 11:50:40 PM
1283 Views
Re: actually that quote supports my thoughts
- 07/01/2010 12:10:07 AM
1109 Views
yet it could take him some undetermined amount of time to figure out your dead?
- 07/01/2010 12:34:34 AM
1100 Views
Re: yet it could take him some undetermined amount of time to figure out your dead?
- 07/01/2010 01:13:40 AM
1067 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
1259 Views
Sigh. What mass murder?
- 07/01/2010 12:15:01 AM
1105 Views
In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully.
- 07/01/2010 03:14:32 PM
1128 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully.
- 07/01/2010 03:57:43 PM
1142 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully.
- 07/01/2010 07:13:21 PM
1160 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully.
- 07/01/2010 07:52:24 PM
1097 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully.
- 07/01/2010 08:56:43 PM
1175 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully.
- 07/01/2010 09:26:01 PM
1137 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully.
- 07/01/2010 09:30:45 PM
1058 Views
Personally I'm kind of sick of Rand being the only person killing FS!
- 07/01/2010 09:42:57 PM
1207 Views
Re: In this book Rand was a wimp and a bully.
- 07/01/2010 09:56:02 PM
1191 Views
OK I'm sorry but this gets a huge ROFL :lol:
- 07/01/2010 10:30:19 PM
1200 Views
Yes. Anakin Skywalker all over again
- 06/01/2010 11:01:02 PM
1248 Views
Meh
- 06/01/2010 11:30:24 PM
1098 Views
The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them!
- 06/01/2010 11:33:32 PM
1075 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them!
- 06/01/2010 11:50:37 PM
1178 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them!
- 06/01/2010 11:55:03 PM
1146 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
1135 Views
Re: The worst part about his atrocities is his rationalizing them!
- 07/01/2010 12:23:11 AM
1059 Views
I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing
- 07/01/2010 12:52:25 AM
1105 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing
- 07/01/2010 01:24:32 AM
1196 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing
- 07/01/2010 03:33:52 PM
1089 Views
Re: I don't think Rand or LTT (who has/have) little capacity for Healing
- 07/01/2010 04:28:18 PM
1254 Views
right cause all Generals are so well versed in medical conditions 
- 07/01/2010 09:44:09 PM
1205 Views
- 07/01/2010 09:44:09 PM
1205 Views
Nice way to avoid the argument.
- 07/01/2010 10:00:17 PM
1132 Views
I'm just done talking in circles. You seem to think that because people
- 07/01/2010 11:53:05 PM
1192 Views
I concede
- 07/01/2010 01:09:11 AM
1090 Views
You weren't wrong overall, but there were some serious flaws in your reasoning.
- 07/01/2010 02:43:17 AM
1209 Views
Morals are subjective anyhow,
- 07/01/2010 06:23:09 AM
1155 Views
Re: Morals are subjective anyhow,
- 07/01/2010 03:23:59 PM
1109 Views
I have religious beliefs and that is an absurd contention
- 09/01/2010 12:00:02 AM
1159 Views
Your assertions weaken your overall argument.
- 11/01/2010 04:47:10 PM
1045 Views
Re: Your assertions weaken your overall argument.
- 18/01/2010 12:49:26 PM
1092 Views
You are treating Graendal's "pets" as though they were enemy combatants
- 07/01/2010 03:40:03 PM
1207 Views
Like I give a damn what a group of professional killers would do.
- 08/01/2010 11:39:11 PM
1081 Views
Graendal captured these people as part of the Shadows offensive, Operation Chaos Rules
- 09/01/2010 12:00:40 AM
1379 Views
Well, I still liked your first argument. It's a freaking war. The argument ...
- 07/01/2010 07:08:53 PM
1129 Views