Immortal Platypus

tbf, he didn't say that about something that could be reasonably construed as self defense. I find that Virtue far far far outranks survival, though that is a personal stance of mine and I do not insist that others take it. I also don't think that virtue requires survival so was slavery wrong? I think so, but in your framework, it was perfectly fine because... why? because it was socially accepted? I think there has to be some nuance with individuals, but of course slavery was and is wrong. Adolin's killing was an isolated incident after an attempted betrayal at the Tower and I believe at least one assassination attempt by Sadeas (could be wrong about that). And Renarin didn't do anything similar at all. Jasnah, on the other hand, set up plans, not because of something that they did, but because of something that they could do. She also did so systematically, not a singular time. *ahem* based that's not certain in the heat of the moment. even if it was, I subscribe to the FAFO school of thought. if you don't want to find out, don't frick around not directly, but the implication is that she shouldn't have done it because it would draw them to her. Why else would people be opposed to it.

yes but only in spoiler tags (like you did) and they're not super helpful for the discussion because Aliroz hasn't read IotE

I'm not here to argue with you, I find such arguments tend to be unproductive, so if you really want to talk about this, PM me, but Deuteronomy 22:5 does. as context, many topics today aren't addressed by name in the scriptures because it was a very different time, so we must extrapolate meaning. as a result, it doesn't use exact phrasing, so there is some room for interpretation, but the meaning seems clear to me. "5 ¶ The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." In addition, there are verses in Psalms (I can't recall exactly which ones rn) that talk about being made by the hand of God, and genesis 1:27 says "... male and female created he them."

and yet her cousins, Adolin and Renarin, don't take the same approach as her. interesting. It seems I interpret Deontology and Kant's ideas differently from you. It seems to me that continuing this discussion would distract from the thread, so I'll leave it there.

Frustration responded to this, I agree with what he said, and the only thing I will add is that decadent doesn't = approving of assassination do you think that killing and murdering are the same thing? I don't.

1) Murderers and killers are different. There is a reason we have different words for them. Everyone who kills someone is a killer, not everyone who kills someone is a murderer. 2) not all voluntary soldiers serve in combat roles. Not all voluntary soldiers have killed people, let alone murdered them. Backstabbing is normal, assassination is not. there's a reason that Sadeas abandoned Dalinar at the Tower instead of hiring an assassin to kill him. One is acceptable, one isn't. I can't think of anyone the Blackthorn or Sadeas assassinated (it might have happened, but it certainly wasn't a common thing).

I don't know if I would say they're "connected" per se, but they are similar

realistically, I don't find it any different from typing to an AI, which, if one is treating the AI like a friend rather than a tool, I find weird, but otherwise I think it's fine. It's just like voice searching Google, except you can ask follow-ups easier

ah yes, I forgot about that one.

IIRC, there's a WOB saying that someone could pick up the Dor and become a Vessel of Devotion/Dominion, but I don't think that's likely

yeah, I did see that. that's not entirely what I'm interested, but I am glad that you have a burden of proof to be met in such a situation. I want to clarify, because it seems to me that you're being at least a little inconsistent (but that might just be my limited understanding of your ideas). Do you think that the spren is subsumed in all Nahel bonds, or specifically the ones we see from the protagonists in SA? I recall you mentioning it for the Sibling and Syl, and I extrapolated that to all bonds, but I don't know if you actually said that. I'd be interested to hear if you have a specific idea of what a Sibling POV would have to do to convince you they weren't subsumed, but it's not something that will bother me if I don't see it, so if you don't want to share, you don't have to. I would also like that POV, but I don't know how likely it is, considering that they don't seem to have much intelligence. Would you accept it if it was a deleted scene similar to the "I am a stick" interlude, or does it need to be part of the published book? that sounds great to me, and is what I think Navani is trying to work towards (but I can't say for sure, that was just my interpretation). agreed, we just have different definitions of what is "ok", hence our disagreement. I think that very few things need to be regarded as absolute and certain, if any. I would say that everything should be able to be re-evaluated, but that many things require an absurdly high burden of proof to change (so high that it would be nigh-impossible to change the opinion, but I would think that it is technically possible, just not plausible). Axioms are also ok, IMO, as long as you recognize that they are axioms, and might not be accepted by others.

yes, obviously I used an exaggerated example, but again, we disagree on the "slavery" concept, and there are also times when killing your friends and family would be the moral thing to do IMO. for the record, not all the blame lies with the Kholins for this. Slavery seems to have been a thing since loooong before the Kholins rose to power. In fact, as you mentioned, Jasnah makes efforts to reduce slavery. Dalinar gives up his priceless artifact, worth more than small kingdoms (IIRC) in order to save 30ish slaves' lives. I don't think that accepting fabrials going forward and hoping for freedom are contradictory. Obviously, I don't see it as slavery, but I do think that you could accept fabrials as a reality while hoping for freedom. US slavery was terribly wrong, but that doesn't mean I now hate the Founding Fathers who had slaves. I recognize that, like me, they did some things right and some things wrong. I think the same principle can apply to the Kholins. the message you portray is certainly tonally messy, but I don't think that's the message being conveyed. Obviously, I don't think the spren are enslaved, but I also tend to lean more toward Frustration's side of spren rights than yours. I think the message is more "each life is valuable, whether it be human, singer, or spren, but each must work and provide value." To say otherwise strikes me as communistic, something to which I am dramatically opposed. humans work and provide value in the form of food, labor, etc. Singers work and provide value in nearly identical ways. Spren cannot work and provide value in such ways, so they must work differently, similarly to how chull cannot work like man or singers, so they provide value in other ways. I don't see it as compromising on convictions, I see it as changing their opinion when something new is introduced. Changing your opinion when new information becomes available is something I value, and see as good. The Sibling compromises, but they don't totally accept fabrials. That's also something I value. I do think that they will continue to object to things, and that they and Navani will work together to continue to improve the experiences of spren in fabrials. That's not the stance I take. Again, the Founding Fathers had slaves. Does that make everything they did bad? No. Does it mean I cannot or will not root for our current system of government to prevail over oligarchy or dictatorships? No. It means that I must recognize that good people can do bad things, and that I can separate the crimes from the person. It means I still need to root for the good things they do while being against the bad things. I'm afraid that we simply have different views on this, and I don't think there's any evidence I could provide to change your mind. If the Sibling said that they weren't subsumed, you could say it's because of basically Stockholm Syndrome, and that's a valid position. At the end of the day, we have different views, and I don't think that yours can truly be proven wrong. I guess my basic question is this: What would it take to get you to change your mind about spren being subsumed by humans in the Nahel bond? You can also replace the last part of that question with any other position you hold. I think it's important to consider what it would take to move you from your position, it's something I make certain that I do. For example, if we see that many of Dalinar's good deeds were motivated by bad intents, I think that could make me change my mind on his morality. If he saved Bridge 4 simply to spite Sadeas instead of because he valued their lives and they helped him, that would make me start to question him. It doesn't need to be an exact "this is all the evidence I'd need", just a general concept. If there's nothing that could change your mind, I think that's a dangerous place to be in, for anyone.

True, but I used the example as a proof of concept to show that there are situations where I wouldn't do what a "deity" that someone else believes in says. I also reject the framing of spren in fabrials (especially modern ones) as slavery, but I expect we will simply continue to disagree on that, and I'm ok with that. Although, to your point, I did find a WOB that says some spren do consider the Nahel bond slaveryish (I forget exactly what it said), so that's evidence for your point. It does also say that many don't consider it to be slavery though, so kind of like us in a way. I'm sorry to hear that. I don't have a problem with mutual respect, but I do have a problem with saying that because someone has a differing belief to me, I need to respect theirs over mine (which is basically what you are wanting Navani to do with the Sibling's view). Are there situations where the other person is right, and I should yield? absolutely. But, it's not every situation, and I think this is one where that isn't the case. I phrased it poorly, what I meant was "someone else thinks it's true, so that belief supersedes my own", which I don't think is a healthy attitude. Again, nothing wrong with mutual respect, I whole-heartedly support it. But, compromising on your beliefs simply because others disagree seems wrong to me.

if a voice in your head said "I am [insert-x-god-that-others-believe-in-that-you-don't-believe-to-be-the-true-God-here (ie, Zeus, Odin, Osiris, Brahma, Allah, etc.)], go kill all your friends and family," would you do so? I struggle to believe that you would. Now, there are different circumstances between you and Navani, but I dislike the logic of "someone else think's it's true, so I have to respect it"

yes, I don't mean instant exact knowledge, just an easier way of figuring it out. for example, if I get hit by an arrow or stabbed by a spear, those two wounds could look very similar. there would likely be some clue or subtle idea that would let you know which one

I think the pulses come out simultaneously with the power being used, so in the case of a duralumin Soothe/Riot, I don't think you could duralumin copper in time without F-zinc, maybe not even with f-zinc. I do know iron/steel you burn, then have to trigger in order to have the Push/Pull effects, but I don't think that's true of zinc/brass. I think once you burn those, their effect is immediate. I think that electrum's mental enhancement would probably manifesting as knowing what caused your shadow to do what it did, and not as increased processing speed.

I think if you're burning bronze and no one in the area is burning copper to mask the pulses, it's probably something you could notice with atium, but most people burn copper rather than bronze. I have no basis for that, but it feels to me like something that could work. There's also a distinct world where it doesn't work like that, which is probably more likely, but still. electrum would work better, and i almost said that, but I don't know if electrum enhances your mental state like atium does to help you process the information. if it doesn't, you'd probably need F-zinc to process what happened to you in the future to time the duralumin copper

it would probably also counter duralumin + brass/zinc (or TLR's mass soothing effect) which could overcome a normal coppercloud's anti-emotional-tampering effect. Again, timing is basically impossible w/out atium (or potentially F-Chromium), but still technically possible

For the record, I think that Kel has similar problems. It's been discussed at length, but I see his hatred and killing of nobles as genocidal. Many have done wrongs, but some haven't done so willingly (Elend being a main example. He bedded a skaa woman at 13 and she was killed afterward. Obviously not his fault, so I don't hold him responsible). However, in Kel's mind, Elend is as bad as the others, simply because he's a noble (in other words, simply because of who his parents are). The only reason he saves him is because Vin loves him, not because he recognizes him as moral. as for what you describe as "has desecrated the dead", it seems to me that you object to it because it violates the Singer culture/region. (If not so, please correct me.) This seems to me that you are more opposed to the blasphemy part than the actual corpse desecration, but that could be wrong. If I'm right, Kel could easily be described as blaspheming (in setting himself up as a god for the skaa). For "war crimes", you could argue that they technically aren't as there was no convention against them, but I think that's a stupid argument, so I'll ignore it. The argument I would make is that several things Kel did would classify as war crimes. (I choose Kel for all these examples because it seems to me that you set him up as a paragon of virtue, and I disagree. If that's not an accurate depiction of your views, I apologize.) For example, assassination of nobles seems to me to be in violation of the prohibition on attacking civilians and/or the prohibition on "willful killing"; he repeatedly sends people off buildings/balconies to fall to their deaths, that might qualify as "willfully causing great suffering", but that one is a little looser; "declaring no quarter to be given" seems to me to have been done, Kel was for killing all nobles, regardless of who they were (before Vin, he grew as a person); "pillaging a town or place" which was done post-mortem by his command to the atium stores (another stretch, but still); etc, etc. For "Slavery", I believe it's been mentioned, but I believe he basically (if not literally) sold Lift to someone (but that might have been the Rosharan Ghostblood branch acting on their own, so I'll cut him some slack there).

to each their own. It doesn't bother me as much as it does you, as I find many characters in many genres have similar, if not the same, flaws. Interesting. I think that's a good way to look at it, one that I wouldn't have thought to put into words. I'll have to think about that some more. Me too, it's a shame that Fantasy has walked away from that recently. I do believe that it is on the return however. Interesting, I've never really really thought that way. I believe in objective good in reality, but in fiction I rarely find it believable.

I don't think they necessarily need to be realistic, but in this case they are and I don't think that's a bad thing. I do think that it is good to have a character with flaws (as we've discussed before), and in this case, moral flaws work well. After all, even Kelsier had moral improvement within TFE. And I would say that it actually is easier to suspend disbelief for magic swords than moral consistency. When you sign up for fantasy, you know you're signing up for magic systems, whereas you don't realize that you're signing up for perfect morals. In addition, being morally right is really hard, especially in situations like the ones our protagonists find themselves in (extra so if you consider the variety of moral codes the characters, and readers, have).

I agree with the first half, it's been common, but I still feel it's important to point it out. I don't think that's the fundamental basis, but Aliroz could likely say the same about our position -- that the fundamental basis is an unfair framing from Brandon. I disagree with Aliroz's interpretation, but I'm sure he could cherry-pick examples, just like those to prove his point. In that case, he could say the same thing that you say at the end. And I don't think he's wrong that the protagonists are morally inconsistent, but I would say that normal people are morally inconsistent and that while it is bad, it's to be expected.