Pathfinder

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.

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.

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

What does freedom of speech and religion have anything to do with HIPAA compliance?

Her recall has nothing to do it. She states very clearly why it is the Ghostbloods. Again open and shut. Any actions the Ghostbloods and Mraize take is accountable and responsible to Thaidakar.

I did already. Shallan clearly states why it is the Ghostbloods. Open and shut. Side note: I was going to update my last comment to include this, but since you already replied, you were thinking the board of directors, not stock holders. Stock holders elect a board of directors who lead the company.

The book clearly states it. Don't need any further proof. It is plain as day. Not ignoring anything. I made my position very clear. Stock holder is different than leader. Stock Holders have vested interests in companies. You are thinking of Chief Executive Officers and the such. But even then that is immaterial as per law Corporations are now considered people. If an employee messes up, the corporation is held liable. Open and shut. Whether or not a corporation can successfully dodge a suit does not change the culpability. Congrats, they can afford expensive lawyers. Does not change the letter of the law. HIIPA is the best example but there are countless more. Thaidakar is responsible and accountable. Full stop. As I said with HIPAA, an employee can knowingly and on purpose steal employee information with intent to sell, completely contrary to the company's stance on the practice, and the company will still face fines and penalization. They should have hired and trained better, as well as have had better safe guards in place. And that is not me saying it. That is literally the law. Look it up. So once again Thaidakar is either: 1. incompetant and responsible or 2. effective, and responsible.

You can certainly interpret it that way. For myself, i took it as I am busy with my day to day dealings. I dont have time to watch a show i have been wanting to watch all this time. Snow storm hits, i cant go anywhere to do my normal day to day dealings. I hop onto the couch and say "Ive been wanting an excuse to watch this show for forever" That doesn't mean i need anyone's permission. Its a pastime ive been wanting to do for awhile but since i have had other responsibilities, i couldnt warrant taking time away to do the pastime. Past time then smacks me in the face and gets in my way. Oooo now i have an excuse!

I don't think we are arguing the level of accountability at all. I have provided numerous examples in our world where the leader of an organization is accountable, full stop. As i have already stated three times, a corporation doesn't get to use those excuses if an employee breaks HIPAA compliance. Its very clear cut. Thaidakar is accountable and responsible full stop. This is a fact as far as i am concerned. That is why by extension: Ghostbloods and mraize are operating within thaidakar's parameters: thaidakar is a good and effective leader, choosing the right people to operate under him. Or Ghostbloods and mraize are operating outside thaidakar's parameters: Thaidakar is a failure as a leader and messed up, choosing the wrong people to operate under him. So if you mean to tell me that mraize and the ghostbloods killing that innocent carriage driver is not a practice sanctioned by thaidakar, then he is a failure of a leader, and messed up, choosing the wrong people to operate under him and is responsible for the carriage driver's death If it is as i believe, that mraize and the ghostbloods killing that innocent carriage driver is a practice sanctioned by thaidakar, then he is a successful leader, that chose the right people to operate under him and is responsible for the carriage driver's death.

Just a little clarity. Mraize does not say he "needs" permission. He said he always "wanted " an excuse. That says something very different to me. To me one denotes being prevented, while another refers to a past time hes been meaning to get around to but has always been too busy. Here is the quote Rhythm of War page 565 “Little Radiant,” the man said. “I’ll admit, I’ve always wanted an excuse to hunt you.”

Yeah i mentioned that in a prior post. Basically i break it down like this 1. Across business, military, governments, and societies, the leader is responsible and accountable 2. That means thaidakar is indisputably responsible and accountable for the ghost bloods and mraizes actions. 3. If the ghostbloods we have met are representative of the group on whole then thaidakar is a successful leader. We know they have direct contact with thaidakar. He has chosen the right representatives that carry out his will. Or 4. If the ghostbloods we have met are NOT representative of the group on whole and operating outside thaidakar's will, then thaidakar is either a. A failure as a leader Or b. not the actual leader I believe thaidakar is an effective leader, so the conclusion i have come to is that the ghostbloods are representative of the organization on whole. Any actions that mraize and the ghostbloods have taken, are with thaidakar's blessing, because as their leader, he is responsible and accountable.

Frequency does not change accountability. Corporations release mandatory training once a year regarding HIPAA compliance but that does not mean they get an out when their employee messes up. Storms the corporation doesn't even get an out if the employee claims they did the training but really didn't. They are still accountable. And so is thaidakar. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. He picked the people under him. So either he is a horrible leader and picked the wrong people, or they are doing exactly as they are told. I think based on what we know of thaidakar, he is an effective leader, so the ghostbloods are doing exactly as they are told. Therefore mraizes actions are representative of thaidakar.

Doesn't matter what thaidakar himself is good or bad at. What matters about being a good responsible leader is picking the right people for the job because they represent you and you are responsible for them. So based on what you wrote, thaidakar is a horrible and ineffective leader. He is regularly duped by his own organization to the point that they can act completely counter to his wishes. Especially considering he is in regular contact with Mraize.

The owner is still liable because without his or her inciting action, none of that would have occurred. The idea is that the owner should have picked a responsible person to use the keys. By extension that person, acting responsible would not have loaned out the keys to another person. Thereby any resulting ramifications would not have occured. Further this does apply to corporations. When an individual, even the lowliest of the low grunt takes an action while in uniform, they represent the company. The company then apologizes for the action of the grunt and has to take action to fix the situation. Again the idea is thaidakar selects person a, person b, and person c to operate under him. If he is a good leader, then a, b, and c are chosen for their capabilities and commitment to the cause. Then they pick people 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6 ,7 ,8, 9, 10. If thaidakar did his job right as an effective leader, then a, b, and c should be responsible enough to pick good candidates in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. If they didn't, then they messed up. If they messed up, then thaidakar messed up in picking them. So once again. Either mraize is acting as he should (and considering he has a direct line to thaidakar, there is no excuse), and thereby mraizes actions are a reflection on thaidakar Or Thaidakar is an ineffectual and poor leader that can be duped by his own underlings or he aint the leader at all Either way, thaidakar is responsible edit: another real life example that might help HIPAA Compliance If an employee releases patient confidential information either by accident or on purpose, the employee that did it as well as the company (hospital, etc) are fined and penalized. The hospital/corporation does not get to say "hey how can I watch all my employees across the country or across the globe?". They are responsible. They gotta pay.

A leader is responsible for the individuals he or she chooses to help lead. By extension, if he or she is a good leader, they should have chosen effective people to carry on under them. Thereby the actions those people take are the responsibility of the leader. Further the individuals that then follow those underlings should be chosen well and again are the responsibility of the leader. It is a chain of command, and the person at the top is responsible. For myself, to say otherwise indicates that Thaidakar is an ineffectual and poor leader. Just look at Sadeas versus Dalinar. One look at the warcamps of each highprince and one can determine what kind of leader is at its head. Neither can keep an eye on every minor squabble, but it is still clear who the organization reflects on. The actions Mraize takes represents the Ghostbloods and by extension Thaidakar. Thaidakar is either responsible and accountable, or not the leader. Another way to break it down is the chain of causation in law (this is a real case ruled on in court) Owner of business and vehicle provides keys to car to a staff member. Owner of business then leaves for vacation with family. Staff member drives vehicle, runs a red light and incurs a ticket. Owner returns to find he is required to pay the ticket. Owner goes to court stating that he was on vacation, thereby was not driving the vehicle, thereby should not have to pay the ticket. Stated to the judge to "prove I was driving the car". Judge calmly responded "Are you the owner of the vehicle?". Owner responded "Yes" Judge inquired "Did you voluntarily give the keys to the staff member?" Owner responded "Yes" Judge ruled "Then you are responsible for any action the staff member takes with that car. You provided the keys to him in good faith, as a reasonable and responsible individual would give the keys to another responsible individual. So you have to pay the ticket" It does not matter whether the owner took the action or not. As a responsible individual, he took an action that led the staff member to be able to break the law. Basically by trusting the use of the vehicle to the staff member, the owner is liable for any and all actions taken with that vehicle.

I honestly don't get the whole anything negative his organization does is not on him because they either misunderstood him or he cannot possibly keep them in line. It makes no sense to me. It comes off to me as then only two possible conclusions. Either: 1. Thaidakar is an effective leader and therefore responsible, so the organization IS reflective and indicative of his current policies Or 2. Thaidakar is so ineffectual, ignorant and easily duped that an organization can function in ways so totally contrary to what he thinks and acts that the outside observer is supposed to divorce the founding man from the very group he leads Its pretty clear i think its number 1.

Brandon also confirmed in the utilitarian sliding scale we have taravangian allllllllll the way extreme, then kelsier and the ghostbloods close behind and then jasnah further away. For funsies a little sliding scale go illustrate Utilitarian <------------------------------------------------------------------------> T-------K+GB-----------J-------------

The WoB is from 2016. That was prior to Oathbringer being published. So no unseen court