king of nowhere

Members
  • Content count

    2,114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

king of nowhere last won the day on September 23 2013

king of nowhere had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,024 Tarachin Superstar

2 Followers

About king of nowhere

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. I am curious at vorin prudeness clashing with depicting an herald in a very revealing outfit. I mean, she's the herald of beauty among other things, but that safehand would be scandalous even for a commoner. Not to mention the legs. The books so far are unclear on what's the status of female legs, but we've never seen any woman showing even an ankle (not intentionally at least; clothing damage does not count), so I assume legs are as taboo as they were in victorian england. Which is, as scandalous as that thinly veiled safehand, possibly more. And yet, if this was made by dandos the oilsworn, it must have been officially approved by the church. Maybe they make a special exception just for her? Maybe there are historical accounts of shallash going around like that, and the church could not say that she should have not, but also could not say that it was ok to ddress like that, so they said that only shallash, being shallash, can. Or maybe they made an exception because it's the only thing ardents are allowed that can pass for porn I am also curious at her being barefeet. Why was she depicted barefeet? It certainly does not seem to fit the rest of the dress. Does bare feet have a special significance in vorin church? Ishar... well, Ishar is just doing a "look at me, I'm awesome" pose. It certainly is achieving its effect, but I worry about the people in the background. What surprises me more are the moons. We were told that they were small and close to the planet, so I always imagined irregular moons, like thebe or amalthea. The fact that they are round means that they must be big enough to become rounded under the force of their own gravity, which means a minimum diameter around 500 kilometers. Which means they must be really BIG when seen from the planet, because they are very close: it was calculated that the only thing consistent with their behavior is that they are in an elliptical orbit of the duration of one day and running opposite the rotation of the planet, so that they can cross the whole horizon in a couple hours during the night; they would also be high in the sky during the day, but they'd be invisible against the greater light of the sun. But moons that big would be viisible also during the day. Also strange is that they are heavily cratered. You can estimate the age of celestial bodies by looking at how many craters they have, and those moons are ancient. However, roshar is fairly new by geological standards; the orbit of the moons are not stable in the long run, they can't be older than a few million years. I always assumed the shards made new moons, but maybe they just grabbed some dwarf planet and put them there in orbit? But why?
  2. That site is the best reference I know of to read the wheel of time, especially when you arrive in the later books and suddenly you found some minor character and you forgot who he was and what he was doing. However, it was never completed. It was updated until the prereleased chapters. But after the book was released, nothing was done anymore. Does anyone know why?
  3. on the other hand, dalinar wasn't trying to think about Evi at the time. Memories don't come up until you dredge them generally, and so this may well be the first time someone mentioned his wife after he got healed by the painrial. another ooption is stormlight healing. the chapter was oddly phrased in a way that would left it ambiguous: the stomrfather said that it was not something caused by the bond, but he never mentioned stormlight or healing, just the bond. And we have precedents of the nightwatcher causing people to have numb hands, like they were blade-severed, which we know stormlight can heal. Anyway, seeing navani put the nightwatcher into a fabrial would be a really great scene.
  4. This discussion started at least 40 years ago; before internet forums, there were letters sent to newspaper. There was even a wikipedia article about it at one time. I have no idea what makes this discussion so enthrancing for many people. Such a small, inconsequential thing. Not at all like discussing the plot of fantasy books
  5. You make me notice, Evi sounds suspiciously like Elvis. That means her death was faked. Inside her coffin was the body of Paul McCartney instead
  6. it's adonalsium, not andolisem
  7. Maybe not (I don't know the law in that regard) but you certainly have a moral obligation there to at least make sure someone called the medics. If you drive by a deserted road and you see a car crash and you do not send an alert, you are guilty in my eyes, no matter what the law says. Let's not confuse ignorance of the law and ignorance related to a specific action. Ignoring the law does not let one get away, but ignoring the circumstances around your actions can and will. It's clearer with an example. Buying cocaine is illegal. If you buy cocaine and claim you did not know it was illegal, you are guilty. But! If you buy some flour, and it turned out that some drug dealer had hidden cocaine in that specific flour pack - his accomplice was supposed to buy that pack but you just got it by happenstance before - then you're not guilty. Because you had no way of knowing that specific pack of flour would contain cocaine. Now, of course you'll have to prove it at a trial - if you buy a pinch of flour for a lot of money from someone suspicious in a dark alley, nobody is going to believe you really thought it was flour. But if you actually didn't knew it, you're not considered guilty. As a real life occurrence, former italian prime minister Berlusconi had a big sex scandal several years ago, and one of his mistresses was underage. He claimed that he did not know it; and, to be fair, it could easily be true. She was 17 and she looked older, and he had so many escorts coming to his place that it is unlikely he asked each one of them for ID. Those called to testify all reported a very lax atmosphere, and some remarked that if they had wanted to bring a gun, they could have done so easily. So, while the whole business was a big blow to his political image overall, the judge ruled that he was innocent of paying an underage prostitute. Well, on the other hand, the parshmen now seem to want to kill them all for perpetrating that great evil. So, establishing that the humans do not deserve to be killed for keeping the parshmen as slaves is definitely something that needs doing. Because the one with whom kaladin talked? I didn't get much of a "well, let's fix this and move on" vibe from him. Incidentallly, I think if I went to him and tried to talk him into thosse arguments, he'd try to kill me, regardless of how well made or founded they are.
  8. If we look at our own world, then I'd say there was slavery from well before. Slavery was practiced in practically any ancient society. Before modern morality set in, when the times were harsh and the only rule was that of survival, then enslaving a defeated enemy made a lot of sense. If you had the power to do it, attacking your neighboring tribe, take their land and kill them made a lot of sense, in that it raised your chance of survival. And if instead of killing everyone you made the survivors into slaves, it raised your chances even more. So, societies with slaves had more power than those without, and could use that to get more slaves. Furthermore, the human brain is made to think in tribes. My tribe, the enemy. In evolutionary terms, your tribe carries your genes, as there is a lot of interbreeding, while other tribes are your competitors. The idea that we should care for other tribes just as much as we do for our own is a modern construct that required a lot of effort to reach. Actions are right or wrong based on objective principles (objective, but still in part arbitrarily set by a society). Moral culpability depends on what the perpetrator knew at the time and his capability of determining the right action. Generally the law divides three instances: in the first one did something wrong but he had no way of knowing it. He is generally considered innocent in that case. In the second, one did not wanted to cause the wrong thing, but he did something else wrong that caused the bad thing to happen. It is the most common case when someone causes an accident through negligence (and I would argue that you shooting your wife's lover would fall in that category, because you should have asked what was going on before shooting). This case also would apply to humans on roshar if they never tried to figure out whether the parshmen were sentient. But we know they experimented and they never got any conclusive evidence that there was a human-like mind inside them. And the third case is when one intentioanlly does something wrong, which is probably the case of whoever created the parshmen in the first place; though there are extenuating circumstances, and if it was done in war as a way to stop an enemy, it also becomes morally justified. That's also a good point. Holding a race responsible for something that one of their members did in the past and was widely unknown by then, and completely unknown by now, is racist, big time. It would be like if I wanted to kill africans because one thousand years ago some of them took to piracy, raided european costal settlements and took slaves. It is important to note that while the awakened parshmen have a point in being angry, if they want to punish the humans they become wrong. I'd say if the humans wanted a fresh start but the awakened parshmen wanted to enslave humans in retribution, the humans would be fully justified in waging war to them. If the parshmen merely asked for monetary compensation, it's debatable. Certainly they are left stranded without resources but what they could carry on their back, they can ask at least for some equipment. On the other hand, human society just suffered major damage for the everstorm, and it lost what was a reliable and cheap workforce (think if our industrial robots stopped working) and it is unreasonable to assume that they'd also be able to pay huge money on top of everything else. Personally, I'd say that the parshmen should receive farmland in reparation. farmland was used to feed both humans and parshmen, and now the humans don't need to feed parshmen anymore, so they can spare some of it. parshmen need the capacity to make a livelihood, and having good land gives them just the chance. Some mines and other resources too. basically, split a corner of the nation where they can live, give it to them, and call it reparation. It's the best I can think of.
  9. but did they produce offspring with humans? If there were half-parshendi kids around, I think it would have been known. I think men and parshendi hadn't produced an offspring in millennia. Possibly it required mateform, or maybe there's another reason, I just think it would be mentioned somewhere if there were offspring, as both shallan and jasnah investigated them to a good extent. human slavery, on the other hand, is quite different: alethi slaves must be paid a minimum wage, they have slave debts that they can try to pay, and they are free if they do. Now, there were evil people who abused the system on account of them having the slaves' documents for "safekeeping" and a slave accusing a master of cheating would never be believed in a tribunal, not without proof that the slave would have no way of obtaining. But from a phylosophical point of view, human slavery was entirely different from parshmen slavery. Human slaves were still considered humans under the law, while parshmen were cattle.
  10. How about cattle? Animals are enslaved all the time, and most people are ok with it. Even if you belong to that small minority that would like to make do without any kind of animal slavery - which is a very small minority anyway, as most people don't see why human rights should go to animals - you'd have to admit that we may, just maybe, be able to make do without domesticated animals in our time only because of our technology. It is possible to eschew meat, but only with modern alimentation knowledge; people from the past would have no way of knowing exactly what kind of fruits and cereals they'd need to eat to get enough proteins. Even today, it is quite controversial if you can maintain a vegan diet without adverse effects. Food aside, before modern synthetics, leather and wool were just irreplaceable, and the labor force provided by horses and donkeys could not be replicated easily. Back in cavemen's time, when men's ancestors learned to hunt big game, it marked a jump in intelligence because they suddenly had more proteins. So, enslaving animals is necessary to survival of a medieval society. The question in whether enslaving the parshmen was acceptable or not, therefore, revolves around two points: 1) were parshmen no better than animals with a humanoid form? 2) had the other humans a chance to learn that? Now, kaladin's conversation make is seem that parshmen retained a glimmer of sentience; enough to figure out that they should not be enslaved. So no, it was wrong to enslave them. But as for question 2), which is a vital one, the answer is no. No, regular society had no way of understanding that parshmen were smarter, and therefore worthy of more rights, than pack animals. We've seen both kaladin and shallan try to interact with parshmen, and they get no smarter conversation than what I'd expect from my cats, if they could talk. except for rlain at the end, when he left bridge four, but keep in mind that rlain was dullform, not slaveform; he had troubles putting two words together, and he still was behaving more smartly than regular parshmen. So, considering all that, I come to the conclusion that enslaving the parshmen was wrong, but the humans cannot be considered guilty as they had no way of knowing the key informations that made the enslaving wrong in the first place.
  11. At least not near the end of the weeping. Wait the first highstorm for that. He doesn't have to time anything. Highstorms travel westward, the everstorm travels eastward, they are bound to meet somewhere. He only needs timing if he wants them to meet somewhere specific. Maybe their parents died young of natural causes and brandon isn't mentioning them to avoid cluttering the narrative. there are already enough loose threads as it is. if gavilar had killed his parents to take power, I think someone would have remarked on it
  12. if this was a sci-fi setting, I would call sheanigangs on the interbreeding, but when investiture is involved, there's really no telling.
  13. This reminds me a lot the debate on whether it was right to use nukes in the second world war. And most notably, the fact that while a lot of debate was made afterwards, no debate whatsoever was made before. It was a secret weapon whose very existance was known only to a relatively small number of people, and most of those people didn't even see a moral question: they were in a total war, they had a new weapon, they used it and called it a day. Only later they saw moral problems. That's because when you are in that kind of war, you are kinda busy killing the enemy before the enemy kills you to consider moral implications. So, I would guess that whoever did the deed - probably a herald - didn't actually give it much thought at the time. It was a move that would cripple the enemy's ability to wage war, and that was it. And after the war, the parhsmen were enslaved because now we have all those dumb people lying around, doing everything they're told, and so why not? they were the enemy, after all. In every war, the winner exacts a tribute from the defeated. They are called "war reparations", but the principle is the same: it can be considered a mild form of indirect enslavement, because the defeated population has to pay the winning population, and the winning population can use that money to make the defeated population work for them; you sum the two, you see that the winning population can make the defeated population work for them for free. And there is little mercy for someone that just a few months before was doing his best to kill you. And so that's probably how it started, and after a few generations it became status quo and most people didn't even knew anymore the facts, so it kept going. And while the parshmen were certainly exploited, keep in mind that they themselves never objected to it, not even when encouraged. Shallan asked some parshmen if they wanted to be free, if they were unhappy with their treatment. She got no answers, and they seemed to be made uncomfortable from the questions. At this point, what was a human to do with parshmen? if left alone, they would be unable to survive. They needed to be fed, and since resources aren't that plentyful in a preindustrial society, making them work for it was perfectly justified. At this point you may want to leave them some free time, give them some pocket money... and they just spend their free time staring at a wall. their money, they have no idea what to do with it. So what then? So I'm also in the "modern rosharans did nothing particularly wrong" field. This certainly is the proper response to the situation, and I think it will be one of the oaths kaladin will have to find. Still, looking at the past and try to sift the right ffrom wrong is a useful exercice, if nothing else for the potential to learn a lesson. Anyway, you might want to revise your grammar and synthax. there are whole parts of your posts where I cannot make sense of what you're trying to say. I'd have downvoted for poor form, except that I'd also have upvoted it for the content and so I did neither.
  14. dalinar was a reprehensible individual, but at least he was honest and no-nonsense. And he was honorable, in the way warlike societies measure it. Brandon did a good job showing how the bloodthirsty warlord had in him the seeds that would become today's dalinar. Also, am I the only one for whom the most distressing part of "stab a man with his own knife, washes knife in the wine, then uses knife to cut meat" was that after washing the knife in the wine he did not wipe it with a tablecloth? kaladin is not being good at arguing. He should say that the people who actually enslaved the parshmen died thousands of years ago, and everyone living on roshar now has no idea what went on with it; they were born in the system and so they see it as the natural state of things, because the human mind is adaptable. Modern people are abusing the parshmen out of ignorance more than anything else. He should also say that war is rarely the best way to solve disputations. From his time as a soldier, kaladin should have that figured out long ago. I think realizing that stuff will be part of his next radiant oath. It also ties well with the questions he was asking after the battle of the tower, which basically amount to "was it right to help one side over the other?". I think kaladin is going to find answers here. Shadolin keep getting cuter, but I would like to see adolin's pow for once. I don't remember having a single one of those, and I think brandon is doing a disservice here: I get that shalllan is the most important character, but we got tons of her viewpoints anyway; showing adolin's perspective for once isn't going to hurt. Unless there are details we should not know yet?
  15. you put ambition twice, both in cognitive and spiritual aside from that, you may be up to something. It would certainly make sense, given how magic works in the cosmere, if shards were grouped like that. And if they were also paired as opposites