bmcclure7

1.For jasnah death Some one else would be king probably Adolin. Wit would be closer to Dalinar. The honor Spren expodition wouldnt succeed. Shallan might have a kid by now. 2. For Shallan and the soul caster This is what happened in the book 3. For the blackthorn Odium wins.

Whatever she (them?) uses my point still stands.

She doesn't seem that interested in either new lands or new fabrials cool idea though

You're confusing fused with void Spren. And the sibling was not around back then.

If the middle one is correct then we could be seeing a type of void binding.

I think they will a more emotional/passionate version of surge spren.

I've gone over The stormlight archive searching for any reference types of Passions. As well as the flew glimpses Of void Spren we have so far and The void binding chart. There isn't much to go on so this is mostly speculation that will probably be wrong. Nevertheless I have put together a list of potential types of void Spren. I thought I posted here and see if anyone else had any thoughts or insights on it that I might have missed Or perhaps you have your own list. 1. The unmade 2. Odium Spren 3. Vengeance Spren 4. Compassion Spren 5. Power Spren. 6. Art spren 7. Redemption Spren 8. Chaos spren 9. Curiosity spren 10. Courage spren

Interesting I thought Anti investiger had the same intent as original investiger. But I can't think of any particular passage. Dose anyone know if it dose or not?

I still confused what is a anti-weapon ( A weapon that destroys other weapons?) And what is a Anti-Adonalsim ( Do you mean that in the biblical sense like a false or replacement Adonalsim?)

What do you mean by unmake?

That makes no sense.

Lots ou f swords, shell fish, wine with yellow and orange food coloring. Gliff decorations. Coseplay. Speprate men and women's food. Maditory knight radiant test for everyone.

I actually don't think moash Will end his story a villain for two reasons. First If Brandon was going to have him die He would have at the end of rhythm of war instead he blinded him. Second moash is a singer name other singer names is are Jewish. So moash is probably supposed to be a version Moses. I don't think that Brandon Sanderson would have given him The name of such an important and well known Jewish figure If he intended him to die a villain. My personal opinion is that moash will reflect aspects of paul the way kelsier reflects aspects of Jesus.

If that were true he wouldn't have died instantly when vin removed his metal minds. Besides even if it's less than a 1000 years a spike full Of metal in your body is gonna take a long time to burn.

The lords ruler metals were still burning after a thousand years .

Compound by definition is a closed loop system. Meaning a compound can store as he burns and then burn the store so he never runs out.

You don't understand compounding.

No she's never has use storm light I don't think she can.

I feel like words of radiance made more sense than Way of kings.

"Again, you are applying "authority" with punishment" Are you really incapable of reading my posts? Did you not read what I said earlier about might makes right. When have I said anything about punishment. Authority Has nothing to do with punishment. You could easily have an authority of no ability to punish. If All the cops in the US quit, The president would still have authority even if it would be ineffective. We've just established that you consider human evolutionary development to be supreme authority, Yet evolutionary development can't punish anyone.

"On the contrary, it seems highly relevant from the position you've advanced. The argument you are making is not any different from any other moral system that might be proposed: declaring that there is no moral authority is every bit as strong a claim as that there is one, as is the claim that only with such an authority can any sort of morality exist. If you believe that there is no moral authority and that there cannot then be morality, then you can't you can't adjudicate between competing claims or make a statement like "let every man do what is right in his own eyes", because there is no right or wrong in that scenario. 1. For the 2nd time I'm not making a moral argument I'm not saying that I know what is moral. 2. If you can think of a way for Morality to exist For anyone other than you personally without a supreme authority give me a example. "then you can't you can't adjudicate between competing claims or make a statement like "let every man do what is right in his own eyes", because there is no right or wrong in that scenario." even the absence of a supreme authority You still have authority over your own body and actions. Hence my statement without a supreme authority let every man do what is right in his own eyes. I fail see how this is a competing claim.

, "I take the perspective of the emerging field of cognitive science, and the further understanding and development of sapience with societal interaction and population growth. Morality as an evolutionary attribute grown and developed over time along side human social intelligence. " So you do have a supreme authority . I could ask why you think I should be morally bound by the laws of evolutionary development any more then the laws of gravity. But the that's really an argument about the legitimacy of a particular authority not that there is one. Since we apparently both agree perhaps we should move this Discussion on to something else.

Things can exist Without authority, laws cannot. "we all live here and agree on this moral idea and then people who choose to live there as well agree to that moral standard;" other words might makes right. We are mighty because of our greater numbers Therefore we have a right to decide what is right and impose it on you. And force you to live elsewhere if you do not agree to conform to our demands. And by Our own logic and moral system If you were to raise an army invade us and slave us ave us and/or kill us, then you'd have every right to set your own moral system Which would be just as legitimate as our own. Far from being absent A supreme authority This merely puts power as the supreme authority. Something is wrong Because someone can force you to stop doing it. And something is right cause someone can force you to do it.

"The first statement is an assumption. You believe that an authority is required. But if an authority is not required, then the absence of the authority then does not inform on whether or not morals matter" In the absence of authority what right have you Or me to assert any kind of moral truth. You can have personal moral preferences for this sure. And in a sense those matter as they matter to you personally as an individual. But they'd be meaningless for anyone else. Put it simply what right have you to say something is right wrong? Give me one example of a system of moralities it does not depend on authority.

Again I'm not saying that The mere presence of a supreme authority Tells you what is moral. Please actually read my post. I'm saying that in that order to say that morality applies to anyone other than you It must come From a higher authority than you. Consider these 2 arguments Argument one Person A. You shouldn't do that it's illegal. Son of Sam. The president himself came to me and told me It was legal. Argument 2 Person A I would prefer that you'd stop killing women. Son of Sam . So? In former argument they're is a higher authority that both sides claiming to speak for. One of them is clearly wrong and the other right and it maybe possibly to determine which or it may not. Either way there is an right answer even if neither side can determine it. In the second argument. There is no right or wrong answer because there is no answer. Neither side is appealing to higher authority they speak for themselves and there own preferences. There is no debate, person a wants son of sam to stop killing, Son of Sam However prefers to continue. The end . Do you understand. People may disagree what is legal Or even on what they should follow the laws of the United States or the laws of Canada. But in the absence of a governmental authority, What is or is not legal is meaningless. Similarly in absence of supreme authority what is or is not moral is meaningless. "But my thing is if you cannot verify the existence of a specific moral authority thereby to verify those moral absolutes, then the supreme authority is no more or less valid than any average "mortal". If that is what you conclude then you must also thereby conclude that morality is meaningless which makes me wonder why you're here arguing about something that's meaningless. Let every man do what is right in his own eyes.