Eliminate All Hostiles With Extreme Prejudice.

[Chitoloco]

What did he mean by this? Is it problematic?

[Budoshi]

by extreme means

[NorthernHick]

What do you mean "problematic"?

It's just a cliche'd euphemism for aggressive execution or assassination.

It derives from the legal phrase "with prejudice" - as distinct from a "without prejudice" letter, which doesn't set out positions in a way that bind the sender, a "with prejudice" letter binds the sender to the positions therein, thus being effectively irrevocable. So the classic example would be that a dismissed employee might be said to be terminated on a 'with prejudice' basis - because the corollary of being told "don't come in tomorrow" happens to be "by the way, we're not going to claim that you breached your contract by not coming in tomorrow".

(Though, at least in my jurisdiction, nobody ever puts "With Prejudice" at the top of a termination letter, and in fact many employers still put "Without Prejudice" on it, because it usually contains a Without Prejudice offer of a separation package...which leads to some interpretation difficulties, really...)

[Chitoloco]

Originally posted by NorthernHick:

What do you mean "problematic"?

It's just a cliche'd euphemism for aggressive execution or assassination.

It derives from the legal phrase "with prejudice" - as distinct from a "without prejudice" letter, which doesn't set out positions in a way that bind the sender, a "with prejudice" letter binds the sender to the positions therein, thus being effectively irrevocable. So the classic example would be that a dismissed employee might be said to be terminated on a 'with prejudice' basis - because the corollary of being told "don't come in tomorrow" happens to be "by the way, we're not going to claim that you breached your contract by not coming in tomorrow".

(Though, at least in my jurisdiction, nobody ever puts "With Prejudice" at the top of a termination letter, and in fact many employers still put "Without Prejudice" on it, because it usually contains a Without Prejudice offer of a separation package...which leads to some interpretation difficulties, really...)

Awesome explanation. I understand now. I was concerned that it had to do with racism or in this case speciesism. I felt that it implied that the aliens had less rights than humans and thus could be killed with prejudice (speciesism). This would have been problematic for me.

[Algol]

Originally posted by Prismbot:

I felt that it implied that the aliens had less rights than humans and thus could be killed with prejudice (speciesism). This would have been problematic for me.

Why?

From ADVENT perspective aliens have more rights than humans. Humans have about as many rights as cattle on a farm.

From the Resisitance perspective humans have more rights than aliens mainly because aliens have no rights at all, especially the right to life. They are not subject to human rights at all since they are not human. I believe Geneva Conventions do not apply to aliens as well. Ethical treatment of animals? Well, they aren't even animals. You expected humans who are hunted down and exterminated to be very tolerant and understanding of aliens? Like, ask that Muton nicely to stop his obnoxious behavior? Show some respect and understanding? Teach him how to love?:)

So of course resistance-affiliated humans want to kill aliens with prejudice. Prejudice doesn't even begin to describe their hatred. Perfectly justified hatred though. Seriously, this is war for survival, not Woodstock.

[Chitoloco]

Originally posted by Algol:

Originally posted by Prismbot:

I felt that it implied that the aliens had less rights than humans and thus could be killed with prejudice (speciesism). This would have been problematic for me.

Why?

From ADVENT perspective aliens have more rights than humans. Humans have about as many rights as cattle on a farm.

From the Resisitance perspective humans have more rights than aliens mainly because aliens have no rights at all, especially the right to life. They are not subject to human rights at all since they are not human. I believe Geneva Conventions do not apply to aliens as well. Ethical treatment of animals? Well, they aren't even animals. You expected humans who are hunted down and exterminated to be very tolerant and understanding of aliens? Like, ask that Muton nicely to stop his obnoxious behavior? Show some respect and understanding? Teach him how to love?:)

So of course resistance-affiliated humans want to kill aliens with prejudice. Prejudice doesn't even begin to describe their hatred. Perfectly justified hatred though. Seriously, this is war for survival, not Woodstock.

Well, NorthernHick explained that "prejudice" wasn't being used in that way. And I'm perfectly fine with killing aliens bent on our destruction or subjugation. However, I don't believe that Aliens would be inherently less deserving of moral rights. They are highly intelligent beings which in my view puts them above cattle - although I am for the ethical treatment of the latter as well. I don't care if ADVENT has a speciest perspective, I think humans are better than that. And I don't think the resistance has ever said that humans have more rights than aliens let alone that they have no rights at all. They're killing them because they're hostile invaders - which is perfectly justified.

TL:DR Killing alien invaders who don't surrender = ok. Killing aliens simply because they are inherently less deserving of moral rights = wrong.

[yuri simp]

It means to be racist at them. /s

Also, if aliens did technically arrive on this planet, they would probably receive only the minimum rights given to animals. That's just how the laws are currently written. No guarantees on what sort of legal framework the ADVENT coalition has set up, though. Just something interesting.

[SievertChaser]

Originally posted by fortune:

Also, if aliens did technically arrive on this planet, they would probably receive only the minimum rights given to animals. That's just how the laws are currently written. No guarantees on what sort of legal framework the ADVENT coalition has set up, though. Just something interesting.

The US Department of Agriculture is obligated to put any alien they come across into quarantine. Or worse, they can declare an Open Season on Ayys: http://www.xenology.info/Xeno/26.3.1.htm