[TulliusCicero]

Yes, I expected that it would make a nonsense argument based on the description of the person linking to it, and that's what happened.

Look, it's them that made the argument. I even quoted the relevant parts. They're clearly arguing that Ender is aggressive and bad because he's violent in response to violence against him. Self defense apparently doesn't count.

If they want to make an argument that makes sense instead, they should do that.

[detaro]

Yes, you quoted a section that describes how the characters in the book view (and struggle with) the fact that the main character kills violently and how that is justified by the different circumstances. And then somehow claimed that the author describing that means the author thinks circumstances don't ever matter.

[TulliusCicero]

Uhh, no. You can even look at other parts of it and see:

> Card thus labors long and hard in Ender’s Game to create a situation where we are not allowed to judge any of his defined-as-good characters’ morality by their actions. The same destructive act that would condemn a bad person, when performed by a good person, does not implicate the actor, and in fact may be read as a sign of that person’s virtue.

"The same destructive act"? Notice again how the author apparently thinks fighting in self defense is the same 'act' as fighting because you want to hurt somebody.

Maybe next up they can argue that target shooting is the same as shooting a person in the face, because either way you're shooting a gun!

> even when his actions seem to belie that characterization.

This isn't just the author asserting how the characters see Ender, it's also clear that the author thinks that "[Ender's] actions belie that characterization". But that's only true if you view fighting back against bullies as not good, if you view self defense as unkind.

Thus, the author's argument is clear: self defense is not acceptable. They won't come out and say it explicitly, because that would make it obvious how dumb the argument is, but that is nevertheless what they're asserting. Instead, they argue it while pretending not to.

Are you sure you're reading the same article? Their argument of "context doesn't matter, only the bare literal act" is quite clear.