Blacksmithki Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, luminos said: You somehow read what I said and managed to think I said the complete opposite. The law does not derive from social power. I explicitly rejected that. So to be clear, you think that the law does not come from the people who create laws... so if a monarch passes a law, do you think that he did not pass a law using his societal power, or that that law is not a law? Because that law is by definition a law, it's why we call it a law... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aemetha Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 Just now, luminos said: That would be a different topic, and not one I'd discuss in the present context. No, it wouldn't be a different topic. You're saying the law originates from a foundation that you won't describe. That's just silly. Your argument is that "the law derives from, just because". Either explain your argument or cease your argument. It isn't debate or discussion without explanation, it's just you saying you don't like something because, which is complaining, not discussing. Pretty much everyone else is saying that the law derives from power. You're saying it derives from something else, so explain what that something else is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luminos Posted November 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 (edited) I can explain it for you but I can't understand it for you. You don't want to know what I am saying. You quoted me and then I assumed I meant the exact opposite of the quote. You aren't even trying. Not even a little bit Edited November 21, 2017 by luminos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulminato Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 (edited) 39 minutes ago, luminos said: This is a fundamental disagreement. Law is not whatever the strongest bully says it is. And I don't think the Skybreakers are the correct order to follow such a vision, if their rationale is that laws must be followed because human discernment is too easily deceived. this is a moral code, OUR moral code. not the law. in a world with wage war is correct and legal mean this world use a different moral code. and the law reflect that. the strong make the law, alwasy. Edited November 21, 2017 by Fulminato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bo.montier Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, luminos said: Laws tend to be enforceable, though there will be exceptions of course. Are you sure you wish to state that anything which is enforceable is a law? That would make it seem that the schoolyard bully who picks on someone weaker is enacting law in doing so. I understand if that was not your argument, but if it is I want to make note of it If you were to call that a society or civilization then sure. Id counter that with the fact that they are subject to a great number of higher laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darvys Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 13 minutes ago, Rainier said: I think this is the biggest misconception. Skybreakers are not about law, or justice, or truth, or righteousness. They are about understanding and internalizing the fallibility of humans and the mind. It's about recognizing that no matter who you are, you are flawed and biased, so you cannot be trusted to judge things like when to use your powers and to benefit whom. The whole point of Skybreakers is subsuming your own judgement to something greater, but definitely external. Whether that's law or not is beside the point. You tried to redress a big misconception by stating a smaller one, i would remind you of the Fifth Ideal which shows that Skybreakers should strive to hone their own judgement not shelve it, i believe the current generation has been tainted by Nale's conviction that one's mind is not to be trusted and that they should all rely on an external code, the result of this is that there hasn't been a Full Skybreaker in centuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavien Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 The law is simply a legal code not a moral one. Nothing more, nothing less. By itself it is not justice, it is not merciful. Can those things be incorporated into the legal code? Absolutely, but it is no less the law if it doesn't have those things. In fact, the concepts of justice, morality and mercy are much more ambiguous than the concept of law which makes where the OP's argument has gone even more mind boggling. And yes, the person or group that makes the laws are the ones with the biggest stick and it's been that way since the dawn of civilization. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacksmithki Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 12 minutes ago, luminos said: I can explain it for you but I can't understand it for you. You don't want to know what I am saying. You quoted me and then I assumed I meant the exact opposite of the quote. You aren't even trying. Not even a little bit I'm sure others like me do, so please, tell us. I doubt anyone is going to accept the "just because" argument like was said above, So please, elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bo.montier Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 23 minutes ago, Bacon said: Did Honor actually rule anything? My understanding is that he was more of a passive caretaker god who only helped humans fight Odium because he, himself was so focused on fighting Odium. After all, Odium already killed at least 3 shardholders and had his eye on Tanavast next. He was definitely the ruler of the heralds and to a lesser extent, the radiants. But they were all in turn, separate from the ruling classes of the rest of society after putting on those mantles. If I were going to make this argument I'd say he was the God of the world, and Odium was the invading God. Honor ruled by implied divine right until he was killed by Odium. I don't know what you do with Cultivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bo.montier Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 16 minutes ago, luminos said: I can explain it for you but I can't understand it for you. You don't want to know what I am saying. You quoted me and then I assumed I meant the exact opposite of the quote. You aren't even trying. Not even a little bit To be fair, I understood you to say what he understood you to say. Perhaps you can clarify? Where does the law arise from? Where does the authority of the law arise from? Where does the power to enforce the law arise from? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erunion Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 Haven’t read this full thread, but I want to make one key point: It is fairly common in ancient practice for prison guards to be executed should they fail and the prisoners be allowed to escape. This plays a key role in the biblical book of acts, where more than once jailers are either executed or anticipate their own execution for allowing prisoners to escape. I’d like to see other sources as well, but I’d need to do some more research. As it is, jailers who allow prisoners to escape can often face legal execution in ancient and classical contexts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacksmithki Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 Just now, Erunion said: Haven’t read this full thread, but I want to make one key point: It is fairly common in ancient practice for prison guards to be executed should they fail and the prisoners be allowed to escape. This plays a key role in the biblical book of acts, where more than once jailers are either executed or anticipate their own execution for allowing prisoners to escape. I’d like to see other sources as well, but I’d need to do some more research. As it is, jailers who allow prisoners to escape can often face legal execution in ancient and classical contexts. Yah, this should be relevant but we are stuck up on him not recognizing the English definition of Law as Law, we are asking him to explain his side and waiting for a reply, he sort of half insulted half blew off the first guy, but high hopes he is still willing to explain his opinion, I'm interested. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wreith Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Darvys said: You tried to redress a big misconception by stating a smaller one, i would remind you of the Fifth Ideal which shows that Skybreakers should strive to hone their own judgement not shelve it, i believe the current generation has been tainted by Nale's conviction that one's mind is not to be trusted and that they should all rely on an external code, the result of this is that there hasn't been a Full Skybreaker in centuries. Swearing the 5th ideal wouldn't excuse you from the external guide you adhere to in the 3rd ideal I wouldn't think. I interpret it such that, as of the 3rd, ideal you follow the guide explicitly provided by your chosen source but the at the 5th you begin to interpret and then extrapolate further rules from those existing without explicit instruction. Also, for all the arguments about the Jailer being executed: The Skybreakers were executing everyone for everything. That doesn't have to have been the actual punishment for the crime as described in law. They just got special permission for it in the cases they arbitrate. Edited November 21, 2017 by Wreith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bo.montier Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 1 minute ago, Blacksmithki said: Yah, this should be relevant but we are stuck up on him not recognizing the English definition of Law as Law, we are asking him to explain his side and waiting for a reply, he sort of half insulted half blew off the first guy, but high hopes he is still willing to explain his opinion, I'm interested. I laughed out loud at your characterization of the current state of this conversation. Not sure why it was so amusing to me, but take your up-vote anyhow. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulminato Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Wreith said: Swearing the 5th ideal wouldn't excuse you from the external guide you adhere to in the 3rd ideal I wouldn't think. I interpret it such that, as of the 3rd, ideal you follow the guide explicitly provided by your chosen source but the at the 5th you begin to interpret and the extrapolate further rules from those existing without explicit instruction. i am the only in thinking nale choose to follow ishar in his third oath? Edited November 21, 2017 by Fulminato 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calderis Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 20 minutes ago, luminos said: I can explain it for you but I can't understand it for you. Your not doing a very good job at explaining it, as evidenced by the lack of understanding shown by nearly everyone else in the thread. Focus on that first part please, and less on outright insults As I've said in this thread already, the Skybreakers swear to follow local laws as proscribed through whatever means exist for the nation, and then that oath is superceded by the 3rd. Trying to apply any legal system to their conduct has been proven by this book to be based on a flawed idea. The Skybreakers are not what we thought they were. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aemetha Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 20 minutes ago, luminos said: You quoted me and then I assumed I meant the exact opposite of the quote. You aren't even trying. Not even a little bit I assumed that because you never explained what you were talking about. Your post was quite honestly impossible to understand properly because you neglected to write the rest of it. You're right, I am not trying because it's impossible to understand an argument you have not made. Honestly, you're just being childish now 21 minutes ago, luminos said: I can explain it for you but I can't understand it for you. Right, the argument of the unintelligible. Honestly, I can think of nothing so vulgar as someone attempting to suggest some kind of impairment in their audience because they can't communicate clearly. Put up or shut up, you just make yourself look stupid by insulting others who are genuinely trying to engage you in debate. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bo.montier Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, Calderis said: The Skybreakers are not what we thought they were. Your thoughts on whether or not Szeth will be what we thought they were? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darvys Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, Wreith said: Swearing the 5th ideal wouldn't excuse you from the external guide you adhere to in the 3rd ideal I wouldn't think. I interpret it such that, as of the 3rd, ideal you follow the guide explicitly provided by your chosen source but the at the 5th you begin to interpret and then extrapolate further rules from those existing without explicit instruction. I'd add to this that in case of conflict, you'd follow your own judgement, otherwise there wouldn't be much point to it. We'll have to wait and see how the oath is worded to know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacksmithki Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 (edited) I'd be shocked if anyone has a single downvote left. So if he left, can someone write a nice extensive post to bring us back on track to the OP or something, like what the person that mentioned Standered historical practice did? Edited November 21, 2017 by Blacksmithki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darvys Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 1 minute ago, luminos said: I said that "Power and authority play a role in law because they play a role in how society organizes itself, but ultimately, laws come from the same place that social power does." What is in your view this place that law and social power come from ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacksmithki Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 I thought of something that could help us go back to an actual topic of that guy left: What would happen if the person they swear to follow tells them to break a law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wreith Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Darvys said: What is in your view this place that law and social power come from ? I believe he's suggesting that the strong only rule because society allows them to. Thus all laws originated/enforced by those who claim authority are only those laws the society as a whole agrees with. If the society were to revolt against a law, the law would change. Social power is societies collective sensibilities and the law is derivative from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calderis Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 7 minutes ago, bo.montier said: Your thoughts on whether or not Szeth will be what we thought they were? At this point? No. I'm extremely disappointed in Szeth's arc. He essentially is still bound to his Oathstone, he just got to choose who holds it. My issue is that he still has no responsibility for his own actions. He is bound to follow Dalinar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darvys Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 I thought of something that could help us go back to an actual topic of that guy left: What would happen if the person they swear to follow tells them to break a law? Once again, they never swore to uphold any particular set of laws, so yes they would follow the person they swore to. Just now, Wreith said: I believe he's suggesting that the strong only rule because society allows them to. Thus all laws originated/enforced by those who claim authority are only those laws the society as a whole agrees with. If the society were to revolt against a law, the law would change. Social power is societies collective sensibilities and the law is derivative from that. This would be at best naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts