[Angelos]

	Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Appealing to authority is done if I were to appeal to another person who has a higher position, using their status as a determiner of right or wrong. I have not done that, your argument is useless.

You appealed to your own authority, which perfectly fills the criterions for argumentum ad hominem.

Originally Posted by TenochAcampicht To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Aztecs have never, to my knowledge, killed man, woman and child, irrelevent of anything, and with the intent to destroy a culture. This is Genocide. We have never commited Genocide. Argue as much as you want, but the term is clear as when it was claimed by Lemkin. Your people commited Sacrifice too, do I need to remind you of the bloody rituals to Odin? The goings on in Valhalla? I know your mythology quite well. Of course I wouldn't presume to tell you about it, as being a Nord, you'd know this better than I, just as I know my own people better than you know mine. This is not an appeal to authority, it's the same as saying a native Arabic speaker knows more about Arabic than someone who is learning it, hence the job example was the same.

My people never believed in Norse gods, nor am I of Germanic origin, so there goes that argument. For example, the rape of Nanking is somewhat comparable to your actions, so perhaps a mass murder would be a better word?

And yes, it is appealing to authority to assume that some people are in position of possessing more knowledge about the subject simply because they are somehow connected to it. Counter my points with arguments, not claims of superior knowledge.

[Arkeph]

To get back to the sovereign arguments, I still disagree that the relationship between the sovereign and the people he governs is necessarily conducive to just/necessary/good action by the sovereign. It seems to me that the well-being of the people has no bearing on whether the sovereign will act in their best interests.

To illustrate this, one can look to large meat producers which put the animals they raise through conditions that can only be described as cruel and destructive. Many of their animals become sick and die. Why do meat producers allow this? The answer is simple: the efficiency of their operation is calculated by the amount of sell-able meat produced by their capital investment, not the percentage of animals which survive.

Obviously, a few (small) meat producers seek animal efficiency rather than cost-efficiency, and do everything possible to prevent their animals from being wasted. As a result, they tend to have higher costs and smaller profit margins, but few animals die.

Another good illustration of the phenomenon is the US slave trade in the pre-Civil War era. Though a cotton farmer's profit was dependent on the presence of healthy slaves, they were rarely treated with any acknowledgment of their humanity. Labor was extracted by violent coercion; escape was prevented by devices and lethal force. Slaves held no real power over their owners. Again, there were a few exceptions, the operative word being 'few.'

These analogies illustrate that a sovereign (as the meat producer is with regard to his animals or a master with regard to his slaves) can pursue his profit (whatever that may be) in very different ways, some far worse for his people than others, even though their well-being is in his best interest in every case. They also illustrate that his people exert only the most passive influence, and are not active checks as the sovereign theory seems to require.

[Angelos]

Originally Posted by Arkeph To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

These analogies illustrate that a sovereign (as the meat producer is with regard to his animals or a master with regard to his slaves) can pursue his profit (whatever that may be) in very different ways, some far worse for his people than others, even though their well-being is in his best interest in every case. They also illustrate that his people exert only the most passive influence, and are not active checks as the sovereign theory seems to require.

The moral values and ideas keep the goals in check. That is to say, a sovereign cannot act against values of society too harshly, without falling eventually. Basically, realism keeps them in check.

With the case of slavery, it was not against the values of the society at the time, at least not against the values of the majority. Once it was treated as ''wrong'', it was abolished. Nor did the slaves have a status of a citizen. Thus they were not protected by the laws of the society. With slavery, the reason for their treatment lies in the values of society, not in the form of government.

[sircockburn]

If a child is capable of keeping the same type of information as adults, there should be no hesitation to yield it in the same way as it is yielded from adults. If there becomes a law about sparing the children, what I see happening is more and more children being used as spies, holders of information, etc.

That said, I don't believe torture is acceptable unless the information withheld could pose a danger to others.