It was a soldier as the Nilfgaardian says at the end of the video.
\o/
It was a soldier as the Nilfgaardian says at the end of the video.
\o/
How is that relevant? I don't think they have that technology in the Witcher universe, so that comparison isn't at all useful.
It's relevant for contrast to point out that shooting a horse with an arrow is "animal cruelty" yet slaughtering animals for food on a daily basis is not (in most people's mind's anyway) - people have slaughtering livestock animals for the past few thousand years now.
Last edited:
in my opinion, i'd say killing the horse in a starving world and not eating it is animal cruelty. but for the sake of not starting a vegan/vegetarian argument and keeping on topic, I would say it depends which you find is the lesser evil. :hmm: both are bad.
You forgot Redania...
And I have no prejudices against Nilfy-Germany. I'm German myself...
And sorry for the off-topic. Again.
Sorry for off-topic...
When I look at W2 outro and discussion here... it reminds me rather times of the Deluge (Polish-Swedish Wars)... Anyway, nothing in this quest is black and white... and I love it!!!Sorry for off-topic...
I have even another idea: the Ottoman empire.
It's coming from the south (like Nilfgaard), it's a real empire (like Nilfgaard), it tried to invade East-Central Europe (like the Northern Kingdoms) and it was stopped once with the help of Polish (Temerian) troops...
I have even another idea: the Ottoman empire.
It's coming from the south (like Nilfgaard), it's a real empire (like Nilfgaard), it tried to invade East-Central Europe (like the Northern Kingdoms) and it was stopped once with the help of Polish (Temerian) troops...
Heh, I like that
Then, who's the Zerrikania then? Well, if the horse didn't spend its entire life in a slaughterhouse and got killed with an arrow as a free horse and it never saw it coming is not that bad. It's an entirely different matter if the horse spent its whole life caged in a slaughterhouse.
I just took issue with the "animal cruelty" point - as this term has more to do with modernity rather than with antiquity. As in, I doubt that would be one of the reasons why Geralt would turn the guy in.
People are quick to point out animal cruelty if they hear about illegal dog fighting but they won't think twice when they stuff their face with dead cows, chickens and pigs.
??? I can't make sense out of that. That's at least SOME kind of cruelty to the animal.
Last edited:
Well, with all honesty, I am not against guerrilla warfare. It always happened on occupied territories, as during WWII, for example. I do not consider guerrilla fighters criminals as long as they only engage troops, and do not slaughter civilians to make some statement. So in some other place and time I would let him go, though may be without medicine. But here I shall definitely turn him in. Long live the Emperor! Nilfgaard forever! and all that. I am a Nilfgaardian patriot, after all.
Well, it depends a lot whether you only fight against military forces and institutions or whether you kill and terrorize civilians.
Following a close definition of "terrorism" the former kind of guerilla resistance isn't terrorism. Only if you spread terror amongst civilians you're a real terrorist. Of course somebody still might call you terrorist as well if you just fight against armed forces and institutions but that's very much just propaganda without much theoretical backup.
Following a close definition of "terrorism" the former kind of guerilla resistance isn't terrorism. Only if you spread terror amongst civilians you're a real terrorist. Of course somebody still might call you terrorist as well if you just fight against armed forces and institutions but that's very much just propaganda without much theoretical backup.
While the war has not ended is accepted. Once war has finished with the invasors as the winners, this resistence guerilla become "terrorist". Just imagine Germans win the war, France become a part of Germany but French Resistence still keep their activity....
So... well, I'm agaisnt any kind of war or violence but I try to understand all faction motivations. We are all humans, after all.
So... well, I'm agaisnt any kind of war or violence but I try to understand all faction motivations. We are all humans, after all.
Last edited:
Maybe. At least the official version. But that doesn't stop people from having their own opinion, grounded in critical thinking and political and societal theory instead of political propganda and agenda. Intelligent people don't just believe in whatever politics and other agenda makers tell them.
Let me add that terrorism only included attacks against civilians. There was terrorism only against military targets.
And the just military targets and don't attck civilian poblations is a modern conception of one or two centuries, with the Gevene Convention recognition. In Middle age, burning villages or killeng any kind of inahabitants of the invaded lands were considered enemies good to be killed. We are too used with our modern morality and wars rules
And the just military targets and don't attck civilian poblations is a modern conception of one or two centuries, with the Gevene Convention recognition. In Middle age, burning villages or killeng any kind of inahabitants of the invaded lands were considered enemies good to be killed. We are too used with our modern morality and wars rules
Last edited:
Well, I would reject that latter definition of terrorism.
Of course it is. But that's the basis for our own ethical judgement, isn't it? Of course we have to take people's morals and perceptions of certain times into account when we talk about historical events. But nevertheless moral judgements are based on our own, modern perception.And the just military targets and don't attck civilian poblations is a modern conception of one or two centuries, with the Gevene Convention recognition. In Middle age, burning villages or killeng any kind of inahabitants of the invaded lands were considered enemies good to be killed. We are too used with our modern morality and wars rules
On the other hand, you can of course make up your own moral code if you want to go really deep into role-playing. Your Geralt could have another moral perception and set of values than we have in the "civilized"world today. Of course that's not the way Sapkowski created Geralt but it's possible.
Of course, I'm not Sapkowski to know what he had in his mind while is was creating Geralt and his world
Please be reminded that political discussion about OUR world isn't allowed in these forums. The discussion has been close to the edge (possibly over it) for a while, but the last few posts were moving into modern times, and have therefore been deleted.
Well, it's a little hard to talk about terrorism without talking about modern law and stuff. But I understand you.
Sorry for the big off topic