• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Pathfinder

  1. Alloy of Law page 137 "He's building an army. he picks the people he does because he suspects that they're secretly Allomancers. The fact that they aren't open about it makes it harder to recognize what he's doing" Then as I said before, at the end of the book, it is revealed the focus was the insurance fraud. I understand the point you are trying to make, but what is plausible for a freelance investigator (who specializes in genology, correction, an uncle who specialized in genology) versus what is plausible for the general population (and police force mind you) are two entirely different matters. The police assumed it was for ransom. They made no attempt to consider the idea that the nobility could have any connection to allomancy. So it can be true simultaneously. also WoB supporting what frustration said: Yoonseo Chang Looking at Allomancy, you've mentioned that over time the power dilutes and each ability becomes less powerful. (for example a Tineye in Era 2 will generally be less powerful than one in Era 1) Does the same effect happen in Feruchemy as well? How would Feruchemy become less pure or diluted (other than Ferrings appearing)? Brandon Sanderson I have not gone as far with Feruchemy in that regard. I would say that if you're going to get a weakening of Feruchemy, which you're asking about, is the amount of stored attribute you get for lost attribute. There is decay there, you don't get a 1:1. Feruchemy generally I would say is not much weaker than it was before, a little bit but not much. This was done partially for narrative reasons. I wanted Allomancy... I wanted to back off a little on Allomancy and tell stories with it a little bit weaker. Again, mostly narrative reasons at this point. At this point on Scadrial, it's weakened about as much as it's going to because by this point people are having children that are more powerful because of the certain mixing. I'm not saying it's going up, I'm saying they have hit an equilibrium on Scadrial for the most part, at least in the Basin. YouTube Livestream 32 (June 3, 2021) Questioner In Mistborn, as the Eras are going on, the powers get diluted because of people passing down the bloodlines. Once we reach the Third and Fourth Era, the powers are going to be--won't they be a lot weaker, and not very useful? Brandon Sanderson They will become weaker, but there's a maximum level of dilution... There's a maximum level that you can reach pretty quickly, if you're only counting the northern continent. Because of the limited number of progenitors. So, Era 3 we're not going to have a problem. And they're also trying to figure out ways around this. Legion Release Party (Sept. 19, 2018)
  2. The reason for the targets as mentioned in the books as well as in WoB (ill provide the quotes later) is because if they targeted allomancers of other classes, then it would be obvious they were going after allomancers. They needed it to be covert so they targeted affluent women making it look like they were going for money, and they did that knowing they could get it wrong and grab people without allomantic ability anyway.
  3. They are not the major religions. The court of gods was the major religion of nalthis. The two major religions of sel speak nothing of the shards. The steel inquisition was a major religion for ages but no mention of preservation and ruin. But it does come with societal regulations. It didnt make sense. Wax said as much. And its confirmed not to be the reason at the end of the book "Waxillium closed his eyes, feeling a dread. I’ve been chasing chickens this entire time, he realized. While someone stole the horses. It wasn’t about robberies, or even kidnappings. It was insurance fraud. “We needed only the temporary disappearance of goods,” Edwarn said. “And everything has worked out perfectly. Thank you.” And what about the individuals i mentioned? Nope. They were in a farming town in the middle of no where.
  4. As of Era 2 it is. As I said, as per WoB and the book everyone is related. The genes have diluted as much as they are going to. Its been confirmed. See you keep saying that, but as I mentioned before, what about Lift? Ym? Vathah? and so on? Associates of radiants. Doesn't matter whether they are rich or not. Kaladin was a bridgeman, amongst the lowest of the low. The rest of the bridgecrew's association led to them bonding spren. Dalinar said Kaladin and his men were free to go. Kaladin could have walked away. No power over him. Also if you recall Kaladin specified that he swore to Dalinar, not the kingdom. There was a rather in depth convo on the subject. Again, it seems like you are focused on Vorinism, not the knights radiant. If you take issue with that religion, then totally to each their own. But regarding the knights radiant of old, that is not how things worked. You are totally entitled to feel however you wish about his arc. For me, that still doesn't change the nature of the knights radiant.
  5. Except in the books as I showed with Wax and Wayne, the powers are so diluted, and everyone is related, so the aristocracy is associated with houses close to the saviors of the world. Not individuals with allomancy or feruchemy. Anyone with the know how can conduct hemalurgy. It has no connection to your status monetarily wise. Kaladin was a doctor's son from a backwater village. Lift was a thief. Ym was a shoemaker. Stump ran an orphanage. Vathah was a deserter. Radiants continue to pop up across the globe, from other walks of life. The WoB showed it had nothing to do with royalty or nobility. It had to do with location, and association. People that tend to exemplify windrunner ideals tend to hang out with each other. Same thing with lightweavers, and elsecallers, and willshapers and edgedancers, and etc. The first radiant to truly "pop up" was Kaladin. You can certainly interpret the sprens actions in whatever light you wish. Personally I disagree. And I am not touching Dalinar and Rathalas with a 10 foot pole Kaladin and Syl stated in the book why the oath was nearly broken. It is because he gave an oath to Dalinar to protect Elhokar. Then he made an oath to Moash to let Elhokar die. Hence the conflict. Had nothing to do with the fact that Elhokar was a king, and Dalinar was royalty. People on both sides of a war will want to protect. People on both sides of a war will feel their cause is just. People on both sides of a war will feel like their own people are vulnerable. What is seen as evil by one side, is understandable and worthy of defending by the other. It was Kaladin's entire arc. It rewards those who hold similar values. Those values are not themselves intrinsically authoritarian. They can be interpreted by some individuals and represented as such, but that is not indicative of the structure.
  6. So the reason I listed the magic systems I did was in response to the belief that the shard they are associated with as a national religion would employ these abilities as a means of control on society. I was presenting that the means of attaining as well as the maintenance of these abilities prevents that. Now having said that, let us take the examples of hereditary magic, such as mistborn/feruchemists/ferrings/mistings. After the end of the world, there was a significantly smaller population left over to re-populate the world. Wax even comments to Wayne how it is because of all the intermarrying with such a small population, everyone in modern day is in one manner or another related. That Wax, a noble, bears some relation to Wayne, working class. Further we have WoB stating that the mistborn and feruchemical traits have diluted as much as they are going to. It has reached a form of homeostasis. Edward Ladrian had no powers to speak of. Other noble families mentioned at the parties lacked any abilities. There hasn't been a mistborn in hundreds of years. So although the society applies preference to employing the metalurgically abled as it were, the nobility is not purely based on having abilities. If anything the nobility was built around the houses of individuals that were close to Vin and Elend. That is no different than a war hero in european countries being awarded land and a title, that the issue of that estate could ride on for some time. So my point is the nobility is more by association than magical ability. As to the murder portion, the point is anyone theoretically could do it. Noble, or pauper. All you need to know is the proper bind points. For SA, I disagree. the magic system penalizes Kaladin for acting against his own personal interpretation of his oaths. He felt he made an oath to Dalinar to protect Elhokar. He then agreed with Moash to kill Elhokar. Hence the problem. To take an extreme example and fall to Godwin's law, windrunners could have been just as easily been on the nazi side as on the allied side. All based on the perspective of the knight. I would go into detail into the rationale but I do not want to digress. Suffice it to say, being a windrunner does not require you to obey or maintain royalty. And that is not even counting all the other orders of knights that are under no compunction to do so either. I think the issue is Honor is being lumped in with Vorinism. The belief structure and functioning of the knights radiant in ancient times is really quite different than the Vorinism we see in modern times. Classical knights radiant did not care whether you were male or female. If you wanted to fight, you could fight. Classical knights radiant saw fighting as a burden one voluntarily undertakes. A burden that must be trained to help handle. Not something to pursue for the sake of "being the best". In books as well as in WoB, many knights radiant did not fight. It didn't even matter if the order you belonged to had an especially destructive ability. It was not automatically expected that you would be martially inclined, nor were you forced to do so. At Tanavast's end, he was more focused on keeping to the express letter of an oath, than anything to do with the actual content. That can thereby be applied to anything. You could make an oath to never obey anyone. You could make an oath that all governments are bad. So long as you keep to it, honor gives you a thumbs up. edit: Ah yes and one more thing. It has been covered in WoB as to why the Kholins are mostly radiants and it has nothing to do with them being royalty. Alethkar had a higher concentration of radiant spren because of its historical location being where most radiants set up shop other than Urithiru. Secondly, spren tend towards individuals involved in "big" things, insofar as can take action to effect change. A peasant from a farm community in the middle of no where became the first windrunner in ages. Finally spren tend to bond into families already with a radiant, not because the family is now royalty, but because if your father is a radiant, you can assume the parent is going to impart at least some of his beliefs onto his child. Which would then cause the child to lend towards the behavior most likely to attract that kind of spren. But it is not always so. A father windrunner, could have a kid that bonds an elsecaller spren. Or no spren at all. (adding the WoB as I pull them up) Questioner Why are there so many Kholins that are Radiants? Is there a story reason or... Brandon Sanderson There is a story reason, kind of. So the Kholin family is in Alethkar, which was the hereditary-- one of the homes of the Knights Radiant. It's still kind of in the forefront of the-- how shall we say-- the collective unconscious and things like this. Plus there's-- Questioner And then they are on the forefront of that. Brandon Sanderson Yes. I mean-- Yeah. And so the spren, some of them are naturally looking for where a lot of Radiants used to be. So it's just a higher concentration of spren around the area, if that makes sense? Shadows of Self London UK signing (Oct. 19, 2015) Argent (paraphrased) Did all orders of Knights Radiants use Shardplate? Brandon Sanderson (paraphrased) It was available to all of them, and they could (all) use it. Many Knights (not Orders) chose not to. There were Knights who were not soldiers and had not interest in wearing Shardplate. Steelheart Chicago signing (Oct. 1, 2013) Soni Is there a reason for why so many early Radiants were family? Including theorized ones, we have Tien and Kaladin, Jasnah and Elhokar, Dalinar and Renarin, Shallan and Helaran... Brandon Sanderson Yes, so I can give you the "how the sausage is made," I call this the narrative reason vs the in-world reason. I can give you both. In-world reasoning is that, when these bonds are forming, these human beings have bonds to other people, and that naturally leads the spren along those bonds. When Kaladin is forming a bond with a windspren [honorspren], and windspren [honorspren] start looking, or even other sapient spren start looking for people, they're going to notice. Remember, they're coming into the Physical Realm, it's very hard for them. They're doing this partially from the Cognitive Realm, searching and trying to get pulled through by the attention and the bond that is forming. They're naturally led to other people who are related. You could even say that, because of Tien, Syl found Kaladin. I built this in for a narrative reason, and the narrative reason is: we generally are going to want to have a larger than average number of people among the core characters, who are involved in the magic system, and involved in the narrative. Because the magic system is so important in my books, I knew that I was gonna have a lot of friends and family of main characters end up with spren bonds. But I don't think this is unusual. In fact, I think this is more true to life. It's not one of those coincidences we make up for a book; it's one of those coincidences that happens in life that seems unusual. It seems unusual if you look at it and say, "There are five people who became full-time in the publishing industry during the year Brandon was a senior at BYU. And they are all friends; in fact, they were all friends before they got published." This seems unusual; like, why didn't anyone else? There is nobody else that I know that broke in into the industry from that year. Maybe it happened, but nobody I knew who wasn't in our immediate friend group. Well, this is not that surprising if you actually look at it, because when one person breaks in, it becomes so much easier for everyone else that knew that person. Not just for networking reasons. (Networking reasons: obvious). The other obvious one is: the people are gonna know each other because they're all gonna be moving in the same circles, looking for each other without knowing it. They're gonna be looking for other good writers, and they're gonna be making connections with them. They're gonna notice when people ask questions in a class that are the right kinds of questions to be asking about getting published. But even beyond those two things, once I broke in, Dan Wells has said before he realized, "Brandon did this; this is real. He actually did this. I can do this." And indeed, he went and broke in. Once this thing that seems impossible, whether it's becoming a full time novelist, or forming a spren bond and becoming a Knight Radiant; once you've seen somebody do it, it becomes way easier for you to conceive of yourself doing it. This is why C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien were in the same writing group. This is why you see this sort of thing happening all around the world and in all sorts of professions, that people who were friends together... Every time that people are like, "Wow, these three major Hollywood stars knew each other in high school." Well, yes, that is actually more likely to happen than not, because of all these reasons I've talked about. YouTube Livestream 23 (Dec. 17, 2020)
  7. Thank you for clarifying! I understand better now. I still completely disagree and will say why below, but don't want you to think I am trying to change your mind or say you are wrong. Just explaining why that doesn't work for myself. Vorinism breaks the callings by masculine and feminine arts. So if you were male (cough Elhokar cough) and are artistic, Vorinism would stunt your progression. If you were female (cough Lyn cough) and were combat inclined, Vorinism would stunt your progression. Vorinism was built into Alethi culture. Don't contribute in the religion, the ardents will do it for you. Going back to the viking mentality of fighting and killing for your god. Compete and win. Prove you are better than everyone else, does not sound very life before death, strength before weakness, journey before destination to me. Dalinar was treated as weak and a nutzo because of that. It was shown as completely antithetical to Alethi and by extension Vorin ideals. It also isn't about picking what you are good at. First as I mentioned with the division of masculine and feminine arts, but further poor versus rich. Dark eyes versus lighteyes. A darkeyes farmer can't choose an officer's calling for instance. There is also availability. Depending on your location and standing, you may not even have access to an ardent that could help you with your calling. And finally as I said, the callings don't all line up with the oaths of the radiant orders. So you could focus on a calling your entire life and come no closer to attracting a spren. I understand you are not saying it is a guarantee. That it is more like a guidance to helps put you in the right direction, but from what I have seen, being a squire to a knight fills that role. Personally I do not see anything about Vorinism that lends its adherents to acting in such a way that results in an increased chance of becoming a radiant. edit: Further after re-reading your post, my point is none of the religions make you more likely to have a certain magic system. Some of them even fly completely in the face of the power system. Sand mastery being chief among them. The main religion hates and reviles them. Same thing with forgery and blood sealing.
  8. I have to check for sure, but here are examples of magic users that have nothing to do with their shard's intent (as in, have to act a certain way in order to use the power) 1. mistborn 2. feruchemist 3. misting 4. ferring 5. hemalurgy 6. forgery 7. bloodsealing (potentially. it seemed to have been presented like forgery. It can be trained and depends on living in an area) 8. dakhor (like hemalurgy, you just have to do the ritual to get powers. nothing requires you to be dominiony to have the power) 9. All the knights radiant for two reasons: a. spren do not only bond the higher class. they have bonded peasants, thieves, bridgemen, deserters, and etc. b. following the oaths is determinate on how the individual interprets them. The fact that knights of multiple orders can be on either side of the current conflict and still hold to their oaths proves this as well as WoB supporting it. 10. awakening 11. sand mastery So personally I do not see anything about the magic systems that require those that use it to be authoritarian and have to prescribe to the shard's way of seeing things. The only one I can really think of are elantrians and that is only because we don't fully know how they are chosen. I feel I remember a WoB as well as a mention in the book that being extra devoted doesn't mean you become an elantrian. Just where you live. So i posted the same time you commented, but I feel a point I made in the above post fields this. Personal perspective and interpretation affects how the oaths are carried out. There is nothing inherently religious connected to Vorinism that I believe applies to windrunner's oaths. The callings mirror some of the ideals, but taken out of context. For instance lightweavers tend to be artistically inclined, but you will not advance in your oaths simply by following the art calling (forgot what it was called, beauty? creativity?). The main creed of Vorinism is like vikings and vahallah. Fight, and kill in the name of your god. Show yourself to be a great warrior, and you get to fight next to your deity in the afterlife. Don't really see how that helps advance the oaths of those orders. Maybe stonewards? Because they don't give up? Basically I don't see anything about those religions that would encourage, or result in more radiants. Could you clarify/specify?
  9. Again you are treating these individuals with power as pure adherents to the source of that power. For example, if I am born a mistborn, then I have to follow the survivorists. When that is not in fact required. Or if I am born a feruchemist, I have to be a Pathian. Jasnah is an elsecaller, yet she is an atheist. Edgedancers are renown for their communication skills. Who is to say edgedancers don't pop up in the country independent of Urithiru? That individuals in the country that were "normal" found that an injustice, bonded an edgedancer spren, and protested it? Or conducted an underground railroad? That is that country's issue, unconnected to Dalinar. He didn't make those individuals surgebinders. But lets say the edgedancers in Urithiru want to do something about it? Send a delegation. Edgedancers acting on a diplomatic mission. (can't remember how to combine posts, so sorry for the double post)
  10. You are treating the "organization" and "surgebinders" as one in the same. Kaladin was surgebinding before Dalinar told Amaram to re-found the Knights Radiant. Stump didn't care who Dalinar even was at that point. The "organization" of Knights Radiant led by Dalinar does not have the authority to decide who can or cannot become a surgebinder. Kaladin ordered the honorspren to consider Rlain, but that was because honorspren like structure, and he could have just as easily refused. The rest of the honorspren did in fact refuse. Now could Dalinar theoretically use his bondsmith powers to start forcing bonds? Maybe? But as things stand now, the spren still get to choose. The "organization" still has to request that "surgebinders" join up. Any other country can just as easily have the fastest form of international travel (elsecaller/willshaper), the most effective form of medicine (edgedancer/truthwatcher), an airforce (winderunner/skybreaker), intelligence gatherer (truthwatcher/lightweaver), assassin (lightweaver/truthwatcher), and a shardblade. So the "organization" does not hold a monopoly. They are not even majority shareholders. They just hold the highest concentration in one spot at this time.
  11. Exactly. Which is why using a metric of power to determine whether or not something is divine is problematic. There will always be a chance that something stronger comes along, or someone else (lesser being) figures out a way to pull the power away, and assert their own authority. Have you ever read the book "All of an Instant"? It illustrates this pretty well. It also goes along side what is occurring in the MCU now.
  12. See the issue with this is it argues based on a measurement of scope. Because X individuals have a Y level of power, they are then considered divinity. But those values are dependent on reference. On perspective. These things are sliding scales. To a baby, mommy and daddy are god. They are able to do incredible and magical things. They are incredibly strong, able to lift the baby effortlessly. They are supremely intelligence, doing incredibly advance computations. Yet when the child reaches adolescence and their teenager years, the mystique diminishes. "Because I said so", no longer satisfies. Questions come. Then when the child is themselves an adult, they realize something very powerful. Their parents were just people like anyone else. Fallible. The parents at the time of the baby had more information, and resources, so seemed divine. Yet they were not in fact. So a person with a match can seem like a god to a neanderthal. A person with a gun can seem like a god to the person with the match. A person with a laser and shield can seem a god to a person with a gun. And you can go on and on and on and on. If power level determined what "divinity" is, then the only thing that gods are, is might makes right. I am divine because I can make you call me that. And to me, that is faulty on many many levels. edit: For example, lets say I do like Taravangian. I use Nightblood to kill Rayse, and take up the shard of Odium. I then out think every other shard, kill their holder and shatter their shards. I then state "I am the most powerful, and I say there are no gods, there is no divine. I am at the top of the food chain and say it is so". So since I am the most powerful, what I say goes, so gods don't exist. No one can say otherwise. I am the grand poobah.
  13. And just to reiterate, totally respect your opinion and your perspective. Just going to offer what is the response to this for those that do not believe in an afterlife: The lack of an afterlife makes everything we do matter even more. Because the earth is all we have. This life, and what we do with it is precious for the time we have and the relationships we build. Because it is finite. You say 10,000 years later what does it mean. What did it mean when the wheel was invented? What did it mean when aqueducts were created? What did it mean when Socrates philosophized ages ago? What did it mean when a parent worked hard to give their child a better life? There doesn't have to be some grand eternal reward to give value to these experiences. The value is there independent of it. It is the betterment of the here and now. If a meteor suddenly flew out of space and blew up the planet, wiping humans out and all evidence of our civilization, there would still be the value the people had through each other. And that is enough. A person can see the value in helping another, loving another, or working towards a goal, all without a sense of eternal reward. Appreciate and work towards making the world better in the here and now, instead of leaving it for "someplace else". But again, I totally understand and respect if in your perspective, you feel personally for yourself that is not enough. You for your own reasons feel an afterlife is crucial for existence to have a point. Just there is a perfectly valid, and understandable perspective that disagrees with you.
  14. So, prefacing this that I respect that is your beliefs, and is important to you. You are perfectly entitled to believe as such. Having said that, that is not an argument against spren having souls, or the beyond not existing. It is only a statement that you personally would dislike such an occurrence. Your personal dislike, and perspective of that, does not act as a proof that it cannot be. Simply because as demonstrated by two other individuals here, such a possibility does not seem so fatalistic to them. Basically I can personally dislike a room being over 70 degrees F, but that does not mean based on my dislike of that status, the room cannot possibly attain such temperature. edit: To put it in context. You believe without an afterlife/soul, there is no point to life. And that is fine. You are perfectly entitled to feel as such. But because you believe there is no point of life without an afterlife, does not mean that there then HAS to be an afterlife. It just means if an afterlife did not exist, you would feel life is pointless. While there are others who would disagree with you. Your personal feeling that a lack of an afterlife would make life meaningless, does not preclude an afterlife from not existing. Does that make sense? I can get convoluted when I type things, so I like to check.
  15. So as you are going on a trip and will not be able to reply for awhile, this is more to further discussion and understanding. I believe the point he or she is trying to make, or at least I am in this case, is there is a difference between correlation and causation. Humans at a primitive state in their evolution (not saying believing in religion makes you primitive, I am merely referencing the time period), lack the advancements we do today to learn about their environment. Therefore in an effort to explain the (at that time) unexplainable, supernatural forces were reasoned to be the source. That is how you got such explanations for a echo in a cave being the spirit of a depressed nymph named Echo pining over Narcesses death. She loved him, but was cursed to only repeat what was last said to her. He died from staring into his reflection for too long. So she went to a cave, despondent and died, her sprit ever repeating back what was last said. Hence the echo. Zeus was said to smite the unbelievers and heretics with his mighty bolt of lightning. To Echo, the response became, well were there thousands of Echos that did the same exact thing, so every cave that has an echo, has a dead nymph repeating back? Or are all caves linked up to that one master cave, so her voice carries throughout them all? If three people all say different things in three different cave locations, how does she choose which one to echo? Science showed the true cause of the echo. To Zeus, the response (by Socrates himself mind you), became, well what happens when a tree is struck by lightning? Was the tree a heretic? What had it done by growing there to so earn the ire of the sky god? If a person ran around calling Zeus all number of horrible words on a clear sunny day, does that mean that person is more powerful than Zeus? Science showed us the true cause of lightning strikes. So if religion started in all these cultures to codify morals, then why is a tree immoral to Zeus? The point I believe that was trying to be made is religion arose from the need to explain the unexplainable. As society grew and evolved, it developed morals. Two developing concepts that occurred for different source reasons. Just because they were coterminous and developed along side each other, does not mean one caused the other. They each had their own individual impetuses. To better explain the difference between correlation and causation. Let us say last week it was sunny all days except Tuesday and Thursday. Tuesday and Thursday it rained. This week it is sunny all days except Tuesday and Thursday. I then conclude it only rains on days beginning with T. An individual wants to change the names of the days of the week for whatever reason and I realize that there are no days with the letter T starting them. Well plants need water to grow. We will end up with a drought! No days with a T means no rain!. That is correlation. I noticed something tended to happen with another occurrence. But that does not indicate one caused the other. We know scientifically temperature shifts are what causes weather and rain. That is causation. So just because all cultures, in an effort to explain what was at that time unexplainable with the supernatural, does not mean a culture requires religion to develop morals. If the developing culture had the tools and capabilities to understand the world around them, they would not need to prescribe supernatural reasons for the function and could theoretically develop without any need for religion. edit: here is another way to put it: All cats are mammals, but not all mammals are cats All developing primitive societies with codified morals had religion, but developing primitive societies did not need religion to codify morals Both myself and he or she showed evidence of animals exhibiting morals. Taking actions without any training or personal benefit to the individual to help or aid another is a common one. There are many others. In many belief systems, animals lack souls, and thereby cannot have morals. That only humans are supremely unique and special, chosen specifically by that deity to be such.
  16. That moral thought experiment has been brought up and discussed extensively since Plato. It is colloquially known as "The Ring of Gyges". It is a ring that grants the power of invisibility. Thereby the user can commit crimes without fear of repercussion. I have linked the wikipedia article below because it probably explains the concept better than I do, but the crux is if the only reason you are moral is due to fear of punishment (whether from law, society, or a higher power), you are not in fact moral. You are enslaved to your own appetites. The man who chose not to commit crimes remains rationally in control of himself and is therefore happy.
  17. My whole point is to challenge the reasoning, not the belief in religion. I disagree with the reasoning that the numeric value of dominant religions in the world today is indicative of their validity. Which is why I presented the hypothetical. I am applying the reasoning fairly across the board. My intention is not to deceive, trick, or change anyone's belief system. Just replying to the reasoning. But with all due respect, you are acting as if I am speaking specifically of your personal religion, and are trying to disprove it. That is not my intention. You are certainly entitled to believe that, and I respect your beliefs. However, that does not change that it was a main tenet of many religions, and it is still a main tenet of many religions. Again, I am not trying to turn you from your faith, or say your god does not exist. I was merely presenting the arguments of how morality can exist outside of religion. And that is great, and I respect your beliefs. As I have said above to frustration, I am not trying to change your belief system, nor say you are wrong for believing them. I am a firm believer in people can believe in whatever they wish if it gives them solace, hope, and helps them live a healthy, happy, and good life. So long as their beliefs do not impinge, harm, or limit other individuals their beliefs. My intention was to demonstrate some of the arguments showing that morals can exist outside the purview of religion. And that example is a real argument that has been used, and is still used to this day, because it was an issue, and for some religions it still is to this day. I also mentioned that societal groups of crows and apes (and others though I would have to pull them up) do the things you mentioned and yet they have no idea of religion. They exhibit morals. Crows mourn the loss of the members of their group. Crows when treated kindly (and I don't even mean intentional training with treats. I mean just pleasantly coexisting), have demonstrated calculated reasoning. For instance (just one of the many), realizing an individual lost something meaningful to that person, and actually flying back to the location to pick up the item where the person lost it, and returning it to the person. They have exhibited care, where if a member of their group is injured, they will gather additional resources to feed the incapacitated member till it recovers. Even if that means they receive less resources personally as result. No problemo. Thank you for understanding.
  18. I did say even if you do not believe that, for the purpose of your reasoning let us act as if it was so. The point is if you are applying a blanket statement that, as you have just reinforced by your Odin example, is the proof of whether or not a religion is valid is based on the numeric value of its followers. That if the religion is true, the number of followers would grow, not reduce. So my point is, if that occurred to religion on whole (all denominations and beliefs), would that then mean religion on whole was false? I said "the main tenet of some religions". Your religion has its own beliefs and structures. Some of which have evolved or changed over the years, or split off. You are speaking to a change or evolution made later to take this issue into account. Originally, and still still stands in many religions, if the individual does not accept that religion's deity as supreme power, then they cannot have salvation. Which is problematic due to isolated cultures, or aliens as mentioned. So by your logic, if that is changing, or ends up changing, does that mean your god becomes invalid? Exactly. Which is entirely possible. I was not stating it was factual, just where such an issue would be problematic for religion. I respectfully disagree. My point is, if Frustration is positing that he believes religions such as norse mythology is proven false simply because people no longer believe, because if such a religion was true, then the deity would make sure people would believe, then that logic should apply to all religion. Including his or her own. But that is what Frustration has put forward. I was merely replying to it. But that individual wouldn't know what those obvious things are, because in the example (this is a real argument that has come up in the history of religion, and resulted in changes in doctrine for many religions), this isolated group or individual live their entire life without running into a member of such faiths that require this of their members. So as per those religions doctrines, this person who did not wrong other than exist in an isolated location, is immoral, and evil. I am merely responding to the reasoning presented.
  19. So I say this with complete respect to your beliefs and your right to believe them. I am just responding to your reasoning. Religion on whole across the globe is seeing a decline in numbers. Atheism is climbing, or people are just apathetic regarding religion in general. Regardless if you believe this is true or not, for the purpose of your reasoning, let us act as if it is. So: if this is in fact taking place, where atheism is becoming or on its way to becoming the dominant view regarding religion, does this then mean your religious beliefs are becoming false? Because it sounds like you are positing the numeric value of people believing something validates its veracity. So if the numbers of your religion decrease, while athiesm or another religion increase, does that make the god of your religion null and void? I think the point is if someone existed outside the knowledge of a religion that requires that god to be the source of morals, and requires subservience to that god in order to attain salvation, then by your logic, that person could be born, live, and die not knowing any better and be deemed evil and amoral all because of the location of their birth. This can be verified as incorrect due to existence of isolated cultures from modern society exhibiting morals. Further societal groups of animals, such as crows and apes have exhibited care and morals, unconnected to sapience and religion. Because a main tenet of some religions is that man was made in the image of god, and is supremely unique. If another alien race exists, and is sapient and holds beliefs different than us, that disproves that tenet.
  20. So starting this thread to hear everyone's thoughts on the new FE game! Any mechanics you hope they carry over from prior games? Any you hope they don't? Anything in the trailer you are particularly excited about or dreading? Here are my thoughts. I hope they keep the personal skills from Fire Emblem Fates. I like making builds that fit the character, so taking a personal skill and building a whole series of skills to amplify that was always a lot of fun. I hope they also keep the class variety/range of reclassing that was in Fates. I think the trailer hints that they will, though without involving marriages having to be prerequisites. I think you could potentially train anyone into any class depending on their weapon ranks, which if the case, I think is an awesome idea. Finally I really hope they carry over the greater depth in story from Fire Emblem Awakening, and make the Avatar have a greater personality as seen in Awakening than Fates. Let me know what you all think!
  21. Ok, so first and foremost, please do not take this as confrontational, nor me shutting you down and saying you are wrong. That is not what I am saying, nor it is my intent. There seems to be confusion on what I am stating. I am not arguing whether or not Thaidakar is responsible. I am stating how it works. He is responsible. Based on how these things function. He is. You can personally feel or hold the opinion that he is not, but as per the real world and how it functions, he is. This is not my opinion, nor thoughts. I am explaining how it functions. It is like I am explaining a math formula. You can disagree with it, or not like it. Totally your right. But it does not change the content of the formula, nor the resulting conclusion. What I am saying is A + B = C. Or another way, I am pointing to the gear in the clock that turns the hour hand. The gear is the gear, and it turns the hour hand. To literally apply the situation we are presented with: An Amazon chapter operating in another country is known to kill people and operate in illegal fashion (for those that believe Mraize is lying, or that individuals misunderstand and they didn't actually do anything "wrong" is immaterial). It is so known as such, that the name "Amazon" in this location is synonymous with such practices. The local Amazon chapter has direct contact with Jeff Besos, and refers to Jeff Besos as the primary and only leader (not democratically elected). As it stands, and how it works, Amazon as a whole is responsible for that local chapter. Jeff Besos, who has direct contact with that chapter is responsible. Again, my intention is not to say "I think Jeff Besos is responsible for those actions". My intention is to say "He is responsible. That is how it works." So I respect you would like to agree to disagree. I wish you luck!
  22. As I explained to Lunauanaki, I am not commenting on ethics. I am not saying whether or not Thaidakar has an ethical or moral responsibility for the actions of Mraize and the Ghostbloods. I am saying plain and simple as the founder and leader of the organization that is the ghostbloods, by the chain of causation, he is responsible for the actions his organization and the members of said organization take. So if we take a picture of an action Mraize took, then that action was either with Thaidakar's blessing or not. If you don't like the action and think that the action Mraize took was immoral, that is your own understanding and interpretation of the action. I am not discussing the morality of said action. I am discussing whether or not Mraize and the Ghostbloods are operating with Thaidakar's blessing. Whether or not those actions are approved by Thaidakar. If you want to take issue with those actions, that is entirely on and up to you, but it doesn't change whose ultimate responsibly those actions flow to. So Thaidakar is either an effective leader, and the actions Mraize and the Ghostbloods take are with his blessing, or Thaidakar is a failure of a leader, and the actions Mraize and the Ghostbloods take are without his blessing. Either way Thaidakar is responsible. The only question is whether or not Mraize and the Ghostbloods are doing what they are told. I conclude that Thaidakar is an effective leader, so Mraize and the Ghostbloods are doing what they are told.
  23. So there seems to be a lot of confusion and conflation going around here, so maybe some examples will help clarify. Jeff Bezos of Amazon who represents the company, lets say states that "I don't like poor people.". That is his free speech. Even though he is representative of the company, his statement is protected. Now there is still the consequence that his customers may not like a person who says such things, and doesn't want to support him, so by extension will choose to no longer purchase from Amazon. But the speech is still protected Chick-Fil-A's head is religious and decided to close all their stores on sunday so their staff can go to church if they so choose. Religious freedom protected, no problem. Where things are different however...... Jeff Bezos of Amazon, who represents the company, swears racist epithets at an employee or a present customer, is not protected and the company is liable. If an employee of Amazon, while in the uniform, on the property, or in some other manner identified as an Amazon employee swears racist epithets at a customer or individual, is not protected and the company is liable If Chick-Fil-A states that it will not serve any other religion at their stores, that is not protected and the company is liable HIPAA was used to illustrate corporate responsibility. It can be applied in many other instances I have mentioned. Further the location is immaterial as I have stated. Let us take another real world example: Loot boxes in gaming. It is considered legal in some countries, strictly regulated in other countries (percentages must be made public), or now illegal in others. The corporations don't get to say "hey how were we to know you don't like it where you are at? Where we are its legal and fine." They are still accountable and responsible Thaidakar's responsibility is clear and irrefutable. The only question that I am discussing is whether or not Mraize and the Ghostbloods are operating in a manner counter to Thaidakar. If they are operating within expected parameters of Thaidakar: Thaidakar is an effective and good leader and is responsible. If they are operating outside expected parameters of Thaidakar: Thaidkar is a failure as a leader and is responsible. I think there is confusion on this point. I am not taking a moral stance on Thaidakar. I am saying he is responsible for the actions of his organization full stop. I am not saying whether his actions or the actions of his organization is moral/ethical or not. That is up to the individuals who decide to weigh those actions when they judge the character, but regardless the moral implications ascribed to those actions, those actions are still accountable and Thaidakar is responsible to those actions. As I said before, that is not an excuse. But it seems below you missed it, so no worries. I am not sure whether considering this is a stormlight thread, whether or not it is allowable to refer to Thaidakar as another name, but going on how business has been conducted in the past, Thaidakar was an effective leader. He chose the right people to carry out his will. When you looked at the actions the people he chose took, they represented him. When one of the individuals took an action outside of what Thaidakar indicated, and hundreds of his people died, Thaidakar took responsibility. He owned up to it. He stated he gave the individual too much power too soon. That he should have been watched longer, and etc. Those deaths were on Thaidakar's head and he confirmed it. That is why my conclusion is that Thaidakar is an effective leader and everything Mraize and the Ghostbloods do is in line with the Thaidakar. My conclusion is he as an effective leader, has chosen the right individuals to work under him. Those right individuals have chosen the right ones under them, and so on. The chain of responsibility all the way back up to Thaidakar So again, Thaidakar's responsibility was never in question. It is whether or not Mraize and the Ghostbloods are operating within Thaidakar's structure. I believe based on everything we have seen across all the books, they are. Thaidakar is a responsible leader, and Mraize and the Ghostbloods actions are done with his approval.
  24. Huh? Someone's personal medical information is not protected by the abuser nor the institution as free speech, nor religion, nor press. I am really at a loss at how that is pertinent to the discussion
  25. What does freedom of speech and religion have anything to do with HIPAA compliance?