TheOtherDave comments on SotW: Check Consequentialism - Less Wrong

38 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 29 March 2012 01:35AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (311)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 29 March 2012 02:04:31PM *  7 points [-]

Short exercise. Does anyone actually think pirates stand a chance against professionally trained assassins? I thought the only reason people defend pirates is because it's a way to say both of them (or their identity-memes) are just so damn cool.

What are we talking about here? Ninjas didn't normally kill in open combat (nor did pirates if they could help it) and pirates didn't generally fight in set piece battles on land. In order to give a serious answer to such a question, you would first need to specify a combat situation: 17th century-style naval combat (of which the outcome would be largely dependent on the state of Japanese versus Portuguese maritime technology), open field daylight desert island team combat, single combat (with or without firearms and at what distance?), coastline castle siege, covert assassination of captain/quartermaster aboard a ship, etc...

Comment author: TheOtherDave 29 March 2012 02:14:53PM 5 points [-]

Not sure I agree.

If I'm a trained covert assassin and I find myself in the middle of a 17th century-style naval combat involving Japanese vs. Portuguese marine technology, it seems what I ought to do is attempt to covertly board the enemy vessel and assassinate its captain. If I'm a trained covert assassin and I find myself in the middle of open field daylight desert island team combat against trained shock troops, it seems what I ought to do is run away and come back in about twelve hours and try again.

More generally, part of what a sufficiently trained combatant is taught to do is control the combat situation, rather than take it as a given.