The Last Post Wins!!!!!

[The Bookwyrm he/him]

9 hours ago, The H said:

Wait, I'm confused. how does it work? Like is there a context, is it a roleplay, what is the setting, etc...

  Hide contents

 

EDIT: Despite the silicon shortage, everyone here has a 2080

There is some lore that's been made randomly over the years, and a few inside jokes that might not make sense at first. But for the most part you should be fine.

[Xiahida]

When I left there was Narration and Wither blades and stuff

[reisleK she/her]

On 8/29/2024 at 2:39 PM, Xiahida said:

Social experiment:

Hemalurgy is ethical.

Respond with your opinions

        I think the vast majority of ethical concerns are due to the sourcing of the bodies. Murder is inherently unethical. The solution that I thought of was people (Mistings, Mistborn, and Feruchemists) donating their bodies after death to be spiked, or allowing a "spiking service" to spike them, then return their body to their family. Though I wonder if ones Allomantic/Feruchemical power deteriorates after death, because that would lead to the requirement of fresh bodies. Fresh bodies could be taken out of hospitals, otherwise where do you get them without murder? Unless the Allomancer/Feruchemist has to be alive during the spiking, that would bring up a lot of problems, both logistically and ethically. I could do more research on Hemalurgic spiking (to receive maximum potency of power) but I have decided not to for the sake of this. I do know that spikes must be stored in blood to keep the power from deteriorating, or something along the lines of that.  
             If living people are required, I suppose someone who is dying can be put under anesthesia, numbed, them spiked. I presume consciousness isn't necessary. If it is, maybe laughing gas or the Scadrian equivalent could be employed, along with a strong numbing agent and pain meds. Overall, Hemalurgy has the potential to be ethical, but it would be hard to achive not to mention complicated.

        Last thing: Does spiking someone (the one who's power is getting taken) kill them? Or can they still live afterwards? I'm going to do some research on that.

Why did I respond in essay form? Because I could. And it was really fun to do.

Edit: The person can live, Hemalurgic spiking usually kills them. I'm now off to figure out if the person can be dead or not.

Edit 2: No information I can find about the donor being dead pre spiking.

Edited August 30 by reisleK
More research done

[Immortal Platypus]

6 hours ago, reisleK said:

        I think the vast majority of ethical concerns are due to the sourcing of the bodies. Murder is inherently unethical. The solution that I thought of was people (Mistings, Mistborn, and Feruchemists) donating their bodies after death to be spiked, or allowing a "spiking service" to spike them, then return their body to their family. Though I wonder if ones Allomantic/Feruchemical power deteriorates after death, because that would lead to the requirement of fresh bodies. Fresh bodies could be taken out of hospitals, otherwise where do you get them without murder? Unless the Allomancer/Feruchemist has to be alive during the spiking, that would bring up a lot of problems, both logistically and ethically. I could do more research on Hemalurgic spiking (to receive maximum potency of power) but I have decided not to for the sake of this. I do know that spikes must be stored in blood to keep the power from deteriorating, or something along the lines of that.  
             If living people are required, I suppose someone who is dying can be put under anesthesia, numbed, them spiked. I presume consciousness isn't necessary. If it is, maybe laughing gas or the Scadrian equivalent could be employed, along with a strong numbing agent and pain meds. Overall, Hemalurgy has the potential to be ethical, but it would be hard to achive not to mention complicated.

        Last thing: Does spiking someone (the one who's power is getting taken) kill them? Or can they still live afterwards? I'm going to do some research on that.

Why did I respond in essay form? Because I could. And it was really fun to do.

Edit: The person can live, Hemalurgic spiking usually kills them. I'm now off to figure out if the person can be dead or not.

Edit 2: No information I can find about the donor being dead pre spiking.

this raises the question: Is murder inherently wrong (or unethical)? Is anything inherently wrong? I personally don't believe so. I think that there is an objective morality, set by God, but I don't think that anything in and of itself is inherently wrong. I think that in a different society, murder could be smiled upon. I think it would be stupid and wrong to do so, but if we speak as though there is no God (or higher being), there is not longer an objective morality, and such societies could form relatively easily. Thriving would likely prove difficult, but it could definitely happen.

[The H]

7 hours ago, reisleK said:

  I think the vast majority of ethical concerns are due to the sourcing of the bodies. Murder is inherently unethical.

'Top 10 best lines on 17th Shard.'

[Immortal Platypus]

15 hours ago, The H said:

'Top 10 best lines on 17th Shard.'

have you seen the thread Sharder One-Liners? That has some interesting quotes

[Doomslug Doomslug Doomslug Doomslug/Doomslug/Doompity/Doo]

2 hours ago, Immortal Platypus said:

have you seen the thread Sharder One-Liners? That has some interesting quotes

Yes! I was just gonna say that, you did first so anyway, that thread has some verryyyyy intrestingngnggg qouttses... 

[reisleK she/her]

On 8/30/2024 at 11:45 PM, Immortal Platypus said:

this raises the question: Is murder inherently wrong (or unethical)? Is anything inherently wrong? I personally don't believe so. I think that there is an objective morality, set by God, but I don't think that anything in and of itself is inherently wrong. I think that in a different society, murder could be smiled upon. I think it would be stupid and wrong to do so, but if we speak as though there is no God (or higher being), there is not longer an objective morality, and such societies could form relatively easily. Thriving would likely prove difficult, but it could definitely happen.

I can't tell if you're trying to argue that an absence of religion in a society creates no morals or ethics, or if you believe that ethics are set by a higher power and without that society could easily slip into chaos. 

I hesitate to say nothing is inherently wrong, I believe abuse, rape, and genocide are not okay in any situation, amongst other things. Sure, one can argue murder isn't inherently wrong, because I'm sure there are valid reasons to kill someone (Ie mercy killing/whatever Navani did for Raboniel), but I think you get the general point. I agree that in another society, murder could be smiled upon.

Also as an atheist (sorta, we could go into a whole conversation about my religion but I'm leaving it at that, I do not believe in any higher power) I don't know what sets ethicality besides society and how we're raised. I don't believe in harming others and will do my best to protect those who cannot protect themselves (I'm a windrunner, what do you expect?). I don't believe in objective morality, I believe as society we set what what is moral and what isn't, not a higher power. Plus people have different morals, a serial killer and I would not have the same set of morals. And how would a higher power communicate 

I hope I'm not misunderstanding your question, I'm happy to explain my stances further and would love to hear more about yours.

I also hope I don't sound to argumentative, I really enjoy hearing others perspectives on things

Edited September 1 by reisleK
who knows

[Through The Living Glass She/Her]

*makes popcorn*

*microwave beeps*

*munch munch*

[The H]

18 minutes ago, Through The Living Glass said:

*munch munch*

*scoops bowl of popcorn*

No offense, but you forgot to shake the bag, varying the butter amount throughout it.

[Through The Living Glass She/Her]

1 hour ago, The H said:

*scoops bowl of popcorn*

No offense, but you forgot to shake the bag, varying the butter amount throughout it.

*takes back popcorn*

nuh-UH

I'll make my popcorn my way, and you can make your own popcorn your way.

[reisleK she/her]

14 hours ago, The H said:

*scoops bowl of popcorn*

No offense, but you forgot to shake the bag, varying the butter amount throughout it.

I got some caramel corn for you guys, want some? I can also eat it all 

[Through The Living Glass She/Her]

MINE

*aggressively hides popcorn*

50 minutes ago, reisleK said:

I got some caramel corn for you guys, want some? I can also eat it all 

*steals some*

[Immortal Platypus]

21 hours ago, reisleK said:

I can't tell if you're trying to argue that an absence of religion in a society creates no morals or ethics, or if you believe that ethics are set by a higher power and without that society could easily slip into chaos. 

I wouldn't say that it creates no morals/ethics, but I do believe that the absence of religion causes very, very different things to become moral/ethical. I also believe that right/wrong are set by a higher power and that we consider certain things to be unethical because the US is very deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian values, inspiring what we believe to be right and wrong.

Quote

I hesitate to say nothing is inherently wrong, I believe abuse, rape, and genocide are not okay in any situation, amongst other things. Sure, one can argue murder isn't inherently wrong, because I'm sure there are valid reasons to kill someone (Ie mercy killing/whatever Navani did for Raboniel), but I think you get the general point. I agree that in another society, murder could be smiled upon.

.I also do not believe that they are ok in any situation, but I believe it to be that way because God has declared so, not because they are in and of themselves wrong. I believe that they are wrong, but I also believe that in the absence of a God/higher power, they could not be objectively wrong, meaning that they are not inherently wrong. I believe that they are against the natural law, or rather, the law of God.

Quote

Also as an atheist (sorta, we could go into a whole conversation about my religion but I'm leaving it at that, I do not believe in any higher power) I don't know what sets ethicality besides society and how we're raised. I don't believe in harming others and will do my best to protect those who cannot protect themselves (I'm a windrunner, what do you expect?). I don't believe in objective morality, I believe as society we set what what is moral and what isn't, not a higher power. Plus people have different morals, a serial killer and I would not have the same set of morals. And how would a higher power communicate 

Are you atheistic or agnostic? (Doesn't really matter for this discussion, but it might help me to make my arguments more clear.) Before we go further in this, I would like to clarify terms. Do you mean ethicality as what is right/wrong?

I would say that morals are set by a higher power. I am a firm believer that the government, or even society at large, cannot set my beliefs for me, and that humans cannot set objective fact (including what is right/wrong) as we are subjective by nature. If I believe something is moral, but society at large doesn't, does my opinion on morality not matter? What if I believe that something is not moral, but again, society at large disagrees? Can a society of imperfect beings set a perfect natural law? I would say no.

I think this is a very important question to this debate: Can objective morality exist without a higher power? I would argue the answer to that is no, something made by humans cannot be objective as, by nature, we are subjective beings.

As for that last question, through holy text (such as the bible, Torah, the Qaran, or the Book of Mormon, etc.) and through prophets (such as those spoken of in scripture, though I also believe that we have present day prophets leading the church I am a part of).

Quote

I also hope I don't sound to argumentative, I really enjoy hearing others perspectives on things

Don't worry about it, I can take a little disagreement. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

[reisleK she/her]

1 hour ago, Immortal Platypus said:

I wouldn't say that it creates no morals/ethics, but I do believe that the absence of religion causes very, very different things to become moral/ethical. I also believe that right/wrong are set by a higher power and that we consider certain things to be unethical because the US is very deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian values, inspiring what we believe to be right and wrong.

I can see where you're coming from that, I don't agree fully, however I do agree that the US is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian religious values, and without that, we probably would have some general shift on what is right and wrong.

Quote

I also do not believe that they are ok in any situation, but I believe it to be that way because God has declared so, not because they are in and of themselves wrong. I believe that they are wrong, but I also believe that in the absence of a God/higher power, they could not be objectively wrong, meaning that they are not inherently wrong. I believe that they are against the natural law, or rather, the law of God.

I'm glad we agree on that, is it possible that we think of them as wrong because of the pain it causes to others. But then it could be argued that how do we (we as in society as a whole) generally agree that harming others is wrong? I have no idea, I'm sure there are multiple theory's, a higher power being one of them, as you believe. Which does make sense to some extent. 

Quote

Are you atheistic or agnostic? (Doesn't really matter for this discussion, but it might help me to make my arguments more clear.) Before we go further in this, I would like to clarify terms. Do you mean ethicality as what is right/wrong?

I was raised Jewish; once I could I rejected all of it (because I did not enjoy the almost decade I spent in Hebrew School), though at my brother's bar mitzvah (which was two and a half years later) I saw the beauty of it from a sort of outsider's perspective, so I've began to sort of embrace it more? I consider myself Jewish, because Judaism is my culture. But I wouldn't say I believe in the religious aspect of it, I hardly do. Some aspects of Judaism align with my beliefs, but I wouldn't say I have my beliefs because of Judaism (though, if we get into nature vs nurture in this situation, maybe I do, considering I've been surrounded by it since I was like three.)

 I would say I'm on the edge of atheism and agnosticism? Or both? I don't really know how to explain it, I'm not 100% sure that there isn't a higher power, I certainly don't believe in one, if there was solid proof I might consider it, I think the idea of a higher power is comforting to many, yet I think it's not something I need? (That was a run on sentence)

As for ethicality, I define it as in what we, individually consider to be right and wrong (Looking back I think I needed to clarify a little, and I'm sure I used it wrong somewhere)

Quote

I would say that morals are set by a higher power. I am a firm believer that the government, or even society at large, cannot set my beliefs for me, and that humans cannot set objective fact (including what is right/wrong) as we are subjective by nature. If I believe something is moral, but society at large doesn't, does my opinion on morality not matter? What if I believe that something is not moral, but again, society at large disagrees? 

I also agree that society, the government, or anything can't set beliefs for anyone. I believe it is an individual thing. I also agree that humans cannot set objective fact, we have what we consider to be objective facts, that aren't. Things that, for the sake of simplicity, or not thinking about it hard enough, we consider objective facts (hence my murder is inherently wrong thing that initially sparked this, I believe that murder is inherently wrong, as do a lot of people, but not everyone.)

Just because society at large doesn't agree with you, your opinions on morality don't cease to matter. What you do about it depends on the kind of person you are, along with how strong your opinions are.

Quote

Can a society of imperfect beings set a perfect natural law? I would say no.

I think this is a very important question to this debate: Can objective morality exist without a higher power? I would argue the answer to that is no, something made by humans cannot be objective as, by nature, we are subjective beings.

I would also say no, I don't believe a society of imperfect beings can do anything perfect in the first place. Humans are flawed. 

I think objective morality can exist without a higher power, just for example, right now, lets pretend there is no higher power, however, no one knows this for certain. Everyone still holds their same religious beliefs. What changes? I argue nothing, I don't think there's a higher power in the first place.

As another example, let's go the other direction. Let's say there is a higher power, and no one still knows for certain if there is or isn't. I argue nothing changes either. 

Now, what if we take those two examples but everyone knows that there is or isn't a higher power? And if there is a higher power, what about people who believe in polytheistic religions? What if there are multiple higher powers? If we ignore all of that, I think things would change at first, but I also really don't know what would happen if one day there was evidence, or lack thereof, of a higher power. 

Quote

As for that last question, through holy text (such as the bible, Torah, the Qaran, or the Book of Mormon, etc.) and through prophets (such as those spoken of in scripture, though I also believe that we have present day prophets leading the church I am a part of).

That's what I assumed you'd say. Are there major themes across every religion? There are so many holy texts and prophets, does that mean there are multiple higher powers? Or just multiple interpretations of the same one?

As for modern day prophets, I really don't know enough about them to speak on the topic, besides knowing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is led by one. (Fun fact: I just realized that it's not The Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter-Day Saints, I don't really know where I pulled the "and the" from)

Anyway, thank you for reading all of this, I look forward to hearing you response. 

Edited September 2 by reisleK
The way this is formatted is terrible, bear with me until I fix it

[The H]

21 hours ago, Through The Living Glass said:

I'll make my popcorn my way, and you can make your own popcorn your way.

So you're telling me you're happy with clumps of butter flavour in some parts, and nothing in others?

(yes that's how I spell flavour, get over it USA )

[reisleK she/her]

9 minutes ago, The H said:

So you're telling me you're happy with clumps of butter flavour in some parts, and nothing in others?

(yes that's how I spell flavour, get over it USA )

In my head I spell flavour with a u. I'm American, lived in the USA all my life. 

Though on paper I spell it the american way, same with color/colour, etc

Edited September 2 by reisleK

[The H]

Good, good. (wrings hands and laughs in worldwide spelling)

[Vyzkel he/he]

2 minutes ago, reisleK said:

In my head I spell flavour with a u. I'm American, lived in the USA all my life. 

Though on paper I spell it the american way, same with color/colour, etc

Just now, The H said:

Good, good. (wrings hands and laughs in worldwide spelling)

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Flavor

 

 

 

 

 

[reisleK she/her]

3 minutes ago, Vyzkel said:

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Flavor

Why so many spoilers?

[The H]

37 minutes ago, Vyzkel said:

  Hide contents

  Hide contents

  Hide contents

  Hide contents

  Hide contents

Flavor

 

 

 

 

 

THE AGONY

Spoiler

 

Edited September 2 by The H

[Through The Living Glass She/Her]

1 hour ago, The H said:

So you're telling me you're happy with clumps of butter flavour in some parts, and nothing in others?

(yes that's how I spell flavour, get over it USA )

No I just don't like popcorn in general, so when I eat it it usually is just FLAVORED with salt.

lol

 

 

 

COLOR

NEIGHBOR

FAVORITE

GLAMOUR- wait

[Vyzkel he/he]

1 hour ago, reisleK said:

Why so many spoilers?

It’s only five.(not hundreds like some people)

[Immortal Platypus]

12 hours ago, reisleK said:

I'm glad we agree on that, is it possible that we think of them as wrong because of the pain it causes to others. But then it could be argued that how do we (we as in society as a whole) generally agree that harming others is wrong? I have no idea, I'm sure there are multiple theory's, a higher power being one of them, as you believe. Which does make sense to some extent. 

I would say that we think of them as wrong, not because of the pain that it causes others, but instead because our civilization's aforementioned roots in Judeo-Christian values influencing our beliefs in what is right and wrong. The reason society at large agrees about that has the same answer, in addition to the fact that when a society is built upon anarchy, or even just apathy for morality, that society will probably not survive. In addition to that, I think that humans are naturally bad, but that we do try to become more like God.

Quote

I was raised Jewish; once I could I rejected all of it (because I did not enjoy the almost decade I spent in Hebrew School), though at my brother's bar mitzvah (which was two and a half years later) I saw the beauty of it from a sort of outsider's perspective, so I've began to sort of embrace it more? I consider myself Jewish, because Judaism is my culture. But I wouldn't say I believe in the religious aspect of it, I hardly do. Some aspects of Judaism align with my beliefs, but I wouldn't say I have my beliefs because of Judaism (though, if we get into nature vs nurture in this situation, maybe I do, considering I've been surrounded by it since I was like three.)

So did the time in Hebrew School make you not believe the religion, or did you just dislike the school, which was associated with the religion, making you dislike the religion?

Quote

Just because society at large doesn't agree with you, your opinions on morality don't cease to matter. What you do about it depends on the kind of person you are, along with how strong your opinions are.

Earlier you stated, "I believe as society we set what what is moral and what isn't, not a higher power." So if I disagree with society, who is correct? Me or society? Which morality is correct? Further, on this point, you said, "I don't believe in objective morality." If objective morality does not exist, doesn't that mean that the Nazis and the Holocaust were not objectively bad?

Quote

I think objective morality can exist without a higher power, just for example, right now, lets pretend there is no higher power, however, no one knows this for certain. Everyone still holds their same religious beliefs. What changes? I argue nothing, I don't think there's a higher power in the first place.

Earlier you said you don't believe objective morality exists. To clarify, do you believe that objective morality exists? What changes? Well, there is no longer an objective morality. In addition to this, I believe that without a higher power, we would not exist, so the point about everyone holding the same religious beliefs is moot.

Quote

As another example, let's go the other direction. Let's say there is a higher power, and no one still knows for certain if there is or isn't. I argue nothing changes either. 

I would disagree. I have not seen God, but from experiences I have had, I know he exists. If I didn't know, I would've made many different decisions in my life. I suppose there will always be that little bit of doubt, so if that counts for not knowing for certain, than I would agree that nothing would change because that is what I believe is happening. 

Quote

Now, what if we take those two examples but everyone knows that there is or isn't a higher power?

Then nobody would care. If they knew there was no God, lawlessness would become rampant. There is no point in trying, cause existence is just going to end in a couple years anyway. If everyone knew there was a God, then everyone would follow him, not by faith, but because he had proved he exists, rendering his plan to redeem us useless.

Quote

And if there is a higher power, what about people who believe in polytheistic religions? What if there are multiple higher powers? If we ignore all of that, I think things would change at first, but I also really don't know what would happen if one day there was evidence, or lack thereof, of a higher power. 

What about people who believe in polytheistic religions? They'd be wrong, plain and simple. If there are multiple higher powers than they'd be right and I'd be wrong (although technically I believe in multiple higher powers). I think there already is evidence of God, but many don't. I think society would change very much if we knew for a fact if there was or was not a God.

Quote

That's what I assumed you'd say. Are there major themes across every religion? There are so many holy texts and prophets, does that mean there are multiple higher powers? Or just multiple interpretations of the same one?

Yes. There are major themes across major religions. For example, murder and theft are sins in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, as well as being wrong in Buddhism. I expect they are wrong in Taoism, Daoism, Confucism and more too. No, it means there are multiple incorrect interpretations of God, and one correct one.

 

Holy cow, once school resumes finding time to type these is gonna get a lot harder

[strmblsd he/him. (You lost the game)]

I just finished camping