Jump to content

bmcclure7

Members
  • Posts

    1185
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

bmcclure7's Achievements

329

Reputation

  1. 1. not true actual. Dull Form dulls mind. Not very good for fighting. Work form encourages Cooperation and obedience. Not exactly the best traits in the soldier. Mate form is easily distracted also not the best trates. You would be a fool to fight in most of these forms . It would be similarly stupid to have sex in a malen form. 2. The exceptions that you brought up are just that exceptions. Your theory is that every race Comes from a different form. But you acknowledge that mating outside of mate form or similar forms is extremely unlikely. Just like fighting out of war form or similar form is exsyeamly unlikely. Additionally you acknowledge that at the very least fertility is decreased in these forms. If you're a theory were true 99% of the human population could trace their lineage to A singer in mate form and No other form.
  2. that quote just proves my point. 1. Rlain never went into combate in dull form, who didnt even learn the spear in dull form just heild one. 2. Not a single parshendi went to war in anything other then warform. 3. im not argue with dradon your just using him out of context. @alder24 1. No fear Malen form cant even grow a beard i doudt it can get hard. 2. at the very least malen is asexual i doudt he would have any interest in sex consenual or otherwise.
  3. 1. if the chance of firtalization is lowered then the chance of theses unions producing a hybred child is unlikly. it os therefore unlikly that that of the majority of the hybids We're conceived in anything other than mate form Or a similar form. 2. As I said it's possible there are one Maybe 2 more but we haven't met that 1 yet so we can't be certain. However clearly most forms are Not used for mating.
  4. 1. Another wob he calls them neuter gender That strongly implies they're infertile. 2. This isn't an either or, you can be both asexual and infertile in fact. In a biological sense if you're in a infirtle gender it only makes sense for you to be asexual And vice versa. 3. Even if We grant that they are only a sexual in other forms. Why would you as a singer Reproduce in an asexual form. If you wish to reproduce. Why not switch to a form that could appreciate sex more. That only makes sense. 4. Granted that phrasing of "several" Could imply 1 or 2 more. But none the less they must be very rare. So far every form we've seen other than slave and mate form has been nueter gender Which is at the very least asexual former likely both asexual and infertile Either way it's doubtful that They will be reproducing in these Forms
  5. Shards don't have bodies so it's unlikely they could have a child at least in traditional way. Theoretically they couldn't make a child or at least a creature that half its DNA. Or maybe even a clone of them. But unless they gave them special powers There are mere ancestry would not grant them anything new.
  6. Exactly the second form is slave form I mentioned it already. All Other forms are in the neuter gender And Therefore infertle. My point still stands.
  7. good theroy but wrong only mate form and slave form are fertile we have wobs say as much
  8. Respectfully I disagree odium surge is division.
  9. Isn't there a perpendicularity on the sorcerer's island? Wasn't that the hole point of her setting up shoe there to control off world trade?
  10. Living things are not excluded from this principle, Parents have limited authority over their creation (children). Well admittedly making a living thing doesn't grant you the same level as authority as a non living thing it clearly still grants you some authority. This isn't a "matter of opinion" It's an established fact recognized by every culture, civilization and tribe. "Predating the shattering and being independent of Ado shows that he didn't create everything." This is profoundly wrong 1. Almost everything Ado Created was before the shattering. How can you say that being before the shattering means that he did not create it? 2. The so-called " Independence" Of the athers is highly disputed in world and cannot be assumed as fact. "Thus, your argument about creating things giving you authority over them, meaning you are their god is moot." Even if The Aethers were correct This Would only mean that he wasn't their "god" as For scadrel he created the creature that made them so yes He would still be considered "god" of scadrel. So it comes down to whether the aethers are right or not if They are not then Ado is God At least given the evidence that is so far presented. That wob only says what the aethers claim. People in world are inclined to disbelieve them and I agree. @Duxredux Having authority over someone doesn't mean you necessarily have complete over authority over them. Authority can be limited. As citizen of the United States the US president has authority over me but there are limits to what You can use the authority to do. I never said that parents have unlimited authority over their children but they do have some Authority. "Authority is something that people give to others, it isn't intrinsic" That's a democratic perspective. It is hardly universal and even we usually make exceptions For certain kinds of authority. And it is certainly not timeless. "Creators generally do have power over their creations, though not necessarily forever or to the same degree. From a certain standpoint, even for someone religious, God only has as much authority as the person is willing to give them, with the accompanying consequences." Again I'm not necessarily saying that a creator has complete and total authority. But it doesn't have to be qualified as God. Even in Abrahamic religions the authority of God has limits. And even more so in other religions. "Ado is about as well known to us as Christianity was known to East Asia in the 6th or 7th century (as in, not very well at all)." Not disputing your point but this is historically inaccurate. Forgive me for ninetpicking here but I have to use my history degree for something. But there was Christian presence East Asia far longer than people realize. Small presence of course but a presence nonetheless. Ironically Christianity made it to China before Buddhism did. I recommend you look up the 4 Christian sutras written in the 7 century.
×
×
  • Create New...