OOTS #1162 - The Discussion Thread

[Grey_Wolf_c]

She's Chaotic Good, really, to only bankrupt them, when you think of it.

You've already admitted that her actions in no way stopped the crimes of the Firehelms from continuing. Stealing from criminals in such way that it doesn't disrupt their crimes is not Good.

On the other hand, stealing from people sold into sexual slavery is very Evil. And since Hilgya stole from far more of those people than she did from the people responsible for any actual crime, she is clearly, unmistakably Evil.

Grey Wolf

[woweedd]

Because you need to read more on psychopathy.



Not quite.

You argued with me that it was wrong to bankrupt the clan. And I did not become more extreme.

I did, however, become more extreme the moment Keltest chose to argue that what they did to Hilgya was just forcing her through a ceremony.

Why, though? Why change your morals based on spite? If it's just for the sake of cheesing off Keltest...Why? What's the point?

[zimmerwald1915]

Why change your morals based on spite?

Spite is its own reward.

[The_Weirdo]

Why, though? Why change your morals based on spite?

Because, though it is my moral duty to argue against the naturalization of forced marriage and victim-blaming, I don't want to.

So they'll have to argue that the entirety of the Firehelm Clan does not deserve to die and spend eternity under Hel's care instead.

[woweedd]

Because, though it is my moral duty to argue against the naturalization of forced marriage and victim-blaming, I don't want to.

So they'll have to argue that the entirety of the Firehelm Clan does not deserve to die and spend eternity under Hel's care instead.

But...That doesn't really add up. If it's your moral duty, you should do it whether or not you want to or not. And if you're willing to ignore it for the sake of your comfort...Why not just leave?
Also, more to the point, you relazie that your exaggerated agreement is EASIER, not harder to debunk, right? And, in answer to the question you're preparing about why no one's argued agnsit it then, 1. People have 2. they can tell you're being disingenuous, so no one takes it seriousness.

Spite is its own reward.

I'm gonna assume that was a joke.

[The_Weirdo]

But...That doesn't really add up. If it's your moral duty, you should do it whether or not you want to or not. And if you're willing to ignore it for the sake of your comfort...Why not just leave?
Also, more to the point, you relazie that your exaggerated agreement is EASIER, not harder to debunk, right? And, in answer to the question you're preparing about why no one's argued agnsit it then, 1. People have 2. they can tell you're being disingenuous, so no one takes it seriousness.

I'm gonna assume that was a joke.

Oh, it's simple, really: if people argue against genocide instead of arguing for forced marriage, I don't have to argue against forced marriage anymore because the people are no longer arguing for it, having, instead, to argue against genocide. Hence...

[Peelee]

Spite is its own reward.

I don't know of I'd use the word "reward," but I certainly can't argue that.

[woweedd]

Oh, it's simple, really: if people argue against genocide instead of arguing for forced marriage, I don't have to argue against forced marriage anymore because the people are no longer arguing for it, having, instead, to argue against genocide. Hence...

That...Makes a twisted amount of sense. But you didn't really answer my question. If it's your moral duty to argue against forced marriage such that you're wiling to risk your own mental health to do so, why not keep doing that instead of diverting the conversation? You're either neglecting your moral duty or you're taking a, clearly needed break from it, but you're taking a much worse route then just...Stopping, since this route not only keeps an argument going, but will make far MORE people argue against you, because you're, seemingly, advocating genocide.

[Fyraltari]

Ignoring The_Weirdness going on in here. I’ve see Avengers: Endgame yesterday. What’s happening in the comic has nothing to do with the contents of the movie. What the hell are people talking about?

[zimmerwald1915]

Ignoring The_Weirdness going on in here. I’ve see Avengers: Endgame yesterday. What’s happening in the comic has nothing to do with the contents of the movie. What the hell are people talking about?

Thing One used a trope that Thing Two also used. Thing One must have inspired Thing Two!

[The_Weirdo]

That...Makes a twisted amount of sense. But you didn't really answer my question. If it's your moral duty to argue against forced marriage such that you're wiling to risk your own mental health to do so, why not keep doing that instead of diverting the conversation? You're either neglecting your moral duty or you're taking a, clearly needed break from it, but you're taking a much worse route then just...Stopping, since this route not only keeps an argument going, but will make far MORE people argue against you, because you're, seemingly, advocating genocide.

Because if people remember the time they had to argue against genocide whenever they think about arguing for forced marriage they might stop.

[Keltest]

Ignoring The_Weirdness going on in here. I’ve see Avengers: Endgame yesterday. What’s happening in the comic has nothing to do with the contents of the movie. What the hell are people talking about?

Spoiler: Endgame

Show

There was a particular scene in the final fight in Endgame where all the female heroes got together in a group to protect the gauntlet and stones for a while. I assume that's what is being referred to.

Because if people remember the time they had to argue against genocide whenever they think about arguing for forced marriage they might stop.

Arguing for genocide hasn't made you stop anything. I fail to see why taking as low a moral ground as possible would make anybody else do anything besides think youre just completely terrible. Certainly nobody is actually going to conflate those issues without somebody like you trying to force them together.

[Peelee]

Ignoring The_Weirdness going on in here. I’ve see Avengers: Endgame yesterday. What’s happening in the comic has nothing to do with the contents of the movie. What the hell are people talking about?

Having seen a single Avengers movie, id guess Thor steals some thunder from someone. Which, being the god of thunder, does seem right up his alley.

[Mightymosy]

I don't know if "no one available to regenerate lost limbs," which can realistically only be cast by their most powerful clerics, would be classified as "sucks big time." If I have a heart attack, I'm probably not going to the best cardiologist in the country, ya know?

Maybe your healthcare service sucks as well? ;-)

Jokes aside, the point remains (I would assume and hope for your health!) that you do get access to a cardiologist who is principally able and competent to treat your heart attack in the current standard.

I mean, I don't know where you live and how it is like there, but this is the basic premise here where I live. If a disease is curable or treatable you get access to it.
In reality, there are few cases that ONLY ONE DOCTOR in the country can treat, though, so there is a difference in OotS world.

Which doesn't change my opinion: I would NOT join that army, given the choice. I'd become cleric so I can heal myself and loved ones, and to escape the stupid dwarven afterlife clause, if I got the chance to.

[zimmerwald1915]

I mean, I don't know where you live and how it is like there

Peelee helpfully has his location listed.

but this is the basic premise here where I live. If a disease is curable or treatable you get access to it.

A quote from the IFCC directors comes to mind.

[Peelee]

Maybe your healthcare service sucks as well? ;-).

Well, yes, but that's beside the point.

If a single doc is capable of fixing X condition, then trucking in every person with X condition will overload said doc fairly quickly. Especially if the doc can only do one operation a day, and if the person requiring it can't pay for it.

[Cazero]

Thing One used a trope that Thing Two also used. Thing One must have inspired Thing Two!

Gosh, the Order of the Stick must have inspired all those western movies where the cavalry arrives to save the day !
Even though all those dwarves are on foot. Giving horses to the rescue team to hide the plagiarism was a real stroke of genius.

[Fyraltari]

Spoiler: Endgame

Show

There was a particular scene in the final fight in Endgame where all the female heroes got together in a group to protect the gauntlet and stones for a while. I assume that's what is being referred to.

Those scenes are nothing alike, though.

Having seen a single Avengers movie, id guess Thor steals some thunder from someone. Which, being the god of thunder, does seem right up his alley.

Spoiler

Show

Quite the opposite actually, Capt. America steals Thor’s thunder. Well borrows his magic hammer, to be precise, which somehow lets him call down lightning despite that having been established as a power of Thor, not of Mjöllnir.

[zimmerwald1915]

Spoiler

Show

Quite the opposite actually, Capt. America steals Thor’s thunder. Well borrows his magic hammer, to be precise, which somehow lets him call down lightning despite that having been established as a power of Thor, not of Mjöllnir.

Spoiler: Endgame

Show

Let's pretend that Thor called down the lightning on Cap's position, responding to his signal of lifting the hammer.

[Ruck]

I don't know it is has already been pointed out but does a single cone of cold kill this entire family ?

I think someone did suggest that, but then someone else pointed out that's only an issue if they get close enough to the Nightcrawler for that to happen.

No. I have a moral duty not to let the claim that forcing someone into marriage isn't a grave and serious moral wrong - or that it might be theoretically motivated by something the victim did to "deserve or motivate it" - go unchallenged.

Preposterous. You have no moral duty to post online, and even if you did, your own victim-blaming has ruined your credibility as a moral arguer.

Oh, it's simple, really: if people argue against genocide instead of arguing for forced marriage, I don't have to argue against forced marriage anymore because the people are no longer arguing for it, having, instead, to argue against genocide. Hence...

Well, someone compared the Hilgya conversation to the Miko conversation, and I found another throughline: the most ardent defenders of each keep assigning responsibility for their continued participation in the argument to other people.

[Fyraltari]

Spoiler: Endgame

Show

Let's pretend that Thor called down the lightning on Cap's position, responding to his signal of lifting the hammer.

Headcanon accepted. What a friend.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Ignoring The_Weirdness going on in here. I’ve see Avengers: Endgame yesterday. What’s happening in the comic has nothing to do with the contents of the movie. What the hell are people talking about?

Spoiler: Avengers:End Game

Show

At least I am referring to the moment in act 3 when a bunch of secondary characters join the battle just as the bad guys have summoned their own reinforcements.

ETA:

Spoiler

Show

Quite the opposite actually, Capt. America steals Thor’s thunder. Well borrows his magic hammer, to be precise, which somehow lets him call down lightning despite that having been established as a power of Thor, not of Mjöllnir.

Spoiler: Avengers:End Game

Show

The Hammer was established in Thor 1 as granting "the power of Thor" to whomever it finds worthy. So if someone is worthy, they can channel lightning with the Hammer. Thor doesn't need the Hammer to do so, but was using it as a clutch until reminded he is not the God of Hammers.

Grey Wolf

[Dion]

Because if people remember the time they had to argue against genocide whenever they think about arguing for forced marriage they might stop.

Or they might think “100% of people I’ve met who are against forced marriage are absolute nutjobs. They did such an absolutely terrible job of arguing, that I’m beginning to doubt my own beliefs that forced marriage is wrong.”

[Dion]

I think someone did suggest that, but then someone else pointed out that's only an issue if they get close enough to the Nightcrawler for that to happen.

Also, it get a little dicey to say this, but...

A bunch of dwarves dying honorably in battle to save the world from evil isn’t really a great tragedy.

[Peelee]

Spoiler: Avengers:End Game

Show

At least I am referring to the moment in act 3 when a bunch of secondary characters join the battle just as the bad guys have summoned their own reinforcements.

ETA:

Spoiler: Avengers:End Game

Show

The Hammer was established in Thor 1 as granting "the power of Thor" to whomever it finds worthy. So if someone is worthy, they can channel lightning with the Hammer. Thor doesn't need the Hammer to do so, but was using it as a clutch until reminded he is not the God of Hammers.

Grey Wolf

So you're saying that the real reference is Malack's staff!

[zimmerwald1915]

Also, it get a little dicey to say this, but...

More than a little

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Also, it get a little dicey to say this, but...

A bunch of dwarves dying honorably in battle to save the world from evil isn’t really a great tragedy.

No, the tragedy is that it is the best possible scenario for their afterlives. But their lives would still be cut tragically short.

Grey Wolf

[Jasdoif]

So you're saying that the real reference is Malack's staff!

He barely had a staff...He had, like, two assistants? Maybe a third?

[KorvinStarmast]

And since no-one but the strawmen you create is arguing in favour of forced marriage, why do you keep creating said strawmen?

We go back to my earlier point on underbridge dwelling.

Strange. Only an absolute psychopath would think that is a foregone conclusion. But you keep insisting you ain't one, so why would you think that is the correct conclusion?

Because, though it is my moral duty to argue against the naturalization of forced marriage and victim-blaming

Really? When nobody is arguing for that? Why do you have such "moral duty" when that isn't even a topic?

Preposterous. You have no moral duty to post online, and even if you did, your own victim-blaming has ruined your credibility as a moral arguer.

Said better than I could have.

Well, someone compared the Hilgya conversation to the Miko conversation, and I found another throughline: the most ardent defenders of each keep assigning responsibility for their continued participation in the argument to other people.

I made that comparison recently, perhaps ill advisdely. Mea Culpa.

[The_Weirdo]

I'll make things easier: think of me as the lawyer for a rape victim that, in a scenario with no rape shield laws, when the opposition begins to question what she was wearing, begins, in turn, to argue that the family of the defendant should be executed.