Chat Thread 24: Two Girls, One Chat

Banking, yes, but in a Game of Thrones-y way.

Sure, Noin.

Okay, shoot me something...and let me know what you need m.m

Okay. So my antagonists have a sort of Social Darwinistic/meritocratic point of view. There's a few different points at which they deliver their philosophy.

In the first, the antagonist argues that being given anything without a struggle is meaningless. That society's problem is a that entitlement has spread like a disease. Further, that the end goal isn't as important as the struggle itself. "It's the struggle, the climb, the challenge that defines who were are. Without the mortal coil, who would be?"

So the question is do you agree with any of that, or would you argue against it in any way?

Well personally I would agree with it. If I had to argue against it...it would probably sound something like that:

"If the goal is meaningless, then what is the reason we struggle? If we have no goal, then there is no point in engage into the struggle. Only those who have a goal, something they want to attain, similar to hope, are willing to put themselves out there. There has to be meaning behind the struggle."

I honestly can't really argue against the "being given everything without a struggle" though. Buddha's life story is a prime example of it. Even when we are given everything and every struggle is kept from us, we are still not happy and we seek out a higher meaning.

Well, they're not saying the goal is pointless, or you'd be right. But the goal generally doesn't better you as a person. The struggle does.

Good. It sounds like that part holds up. ^^ Now, for the more controversial stuff...

Alright, go for it

Achieving the goal is what makes you. not solely how you got to it.
Meaning: People who gained what they deem as riches will value life differently

The person who was born with them, would have a different attitude towards life and people than
The person who was was given/gifted to freely and they too would have a different attitude to life than
The person who earned them in varied manners (struggled long term or short term) all by themselves.

And even among them it is the environment and life experience that defines the person, because even some who are born in riches or get entitled to them can turn out to be philanthropists and give all their wealth to others. or share it.

While at the same time, those who struggled and fairly earned their wealth would not want to share it with others because they may see the world as "Strongest/ toughness/ those who help themselves, should only be rewarded" attitude.
Meaning: I worked hard for these, why should I give them to others, Others should work hard and get them all by themselves.

Now if the people who earned their wealth had help, they may willingly share it with those who helped them and even help others to gain their own wealth/riches/end-goal/etc.

With that said: People who earn their wealth through struggle could also turn out to be philanthropists and help others, share their experience or freely give their wealth, solely because they know the pain and sweat that takes in reaching those goals and thus wouldn't want to wish such hardships onto others.

And in the same vein: Those who were born into or were handed their wealth would behave arrogantly and take up an elitist attitude. They may wish that others who are not of their own class are beneath them and they should rise up on their own to earn the same riches as them.



So struggle or no-struggle-at-all may define us equally. It is more so the environment that we live in and-or The society, that we surround ourselves in that may influence us positively or negatively.


The goal is the catalyst, the struggle or lack their off is the process and the state of environment and society is the solution in which all is submerged in. The End Product, being your Personality(what defined you as you).

Shadow-Heart wrote:

While at the same time, those who struggled and fairly earned their wealth would not want to share it with others because they may see the world as "Strongest/ toughness/ those who help themselves, should only be rewarded" attitude.
Meaning: I worked hard for these, why should I give them to others, Others should work hard and get them all by themselves.

Well, that's exactly what the antagonists are like.

So at another point, a story is told about a family where the mother was terminally ill and wasting away, but instead of letting her die in peace, they kept trying to do more tests and surgeries to keep her alive.

A lot of people argue that euthanasia and pulling feeding tubes and such is "playing God," whereas the antagonist thinks this technology is man-made, and by using it to keep people alive that would otherwise die, they are the ones "playing God."

In their words:

"Death is a part of life. Allowing death is not playing God. Chaining the sick and weary to life is."

Prisma*Illya wrote:

Shadow-Heart wrote:

While at the same time, those who struggled and fairly earned their wealth would not want to share it with others because they may see the world as "Strongest/ toughness/ those who help themselves, should only be rewarded" attitude.
Meaning: I worked hard for these, why should I give them to others, Others should work hard and get them all by themselves.

Well, that's exactly what the antagonists are like.

If it is a question of right or wrong, then it is neither.

They are entitled to their wealth and is up to them what to do with it, personally. But not helping others, that may paint them in a neutral to negative light but forcing this dogma onto others is wrong.

Only arguing that they don't want to part with their wealth because they earned it and its up to them as to what to do with it is Okay. But aggressively preaching their way, boasting about their achievements, mocking others, looking down on them, is what tips their image to a negative portrayal.


Now, those who got to their goals and riches, without much struggle and they acting the same way, the "poor" people would definitely look upon them with jealousy or negative emotions. They can refute that they were entitled to their "thrones" because of their family lineage but if you go back, their ancestors must have gained their wealth, their way of life, out of hard work and struggle. But the current generation, acting all high and mighty do not and thus that is why the people would be against them.

Those who struggle are entitled to do whatever they want(as means of reward for their hardships) but what they do in the end is what they will be portrayed as.

Prisma*Illya wrote:

So at another point, a story is told about a family where the mother was terminally ill and wasting away, but instead of letting her die in peace, they kept trying to do more tests and surgeries to keep her alive.

The antagonist argues that:

"Death is a part of life. Allowing death is not playing God. Chaining the sick and weary to life is."

No means No
If their was consent from the patient then sure go ahead in the name of Science. Without practical experiments, progress may be at a standstill. And this all depends on the current knowledge of the era. If it is futuristic-ally advanced where you can experiment on synthetics or robotics, then people may not bring up Moral issues.

Sure, Death may be a part of life, but wanting oneself to live as long as one can allow themselves to, is a part of living life.

Letting the sick die by not doing anything is due to lack of knowledge on how not to stop one from getting sick. Death is not the problem, getting sick which leads to death is.

Ah this is an interesting one.

If I was on the other side of this, like the family of that mother... I would say that trying to prevent the loss of a loved one, trying to save her is a natural reaction. If you have the possibility to save her, even if it's just one in thousand...why not take it? Have the faith and the hope to believe in miracles.

Of course this becomes very difficult to argue as soon as you generalize it. If there is one person deciding who gets to live and who doesn't...yes, then it's playing God, but as long as it's a decision within one family, where they are only responsible for their family members (so to speak), then why shouldn't they be allowed to cling to hope? To grasp at straws, trying to save their loved one? Can you blame them for trying?

Essentially what I'm trying to say is: What wouldn't you do to save a loved one?

It also brings up other questions:
How do you know where to draw the line? If using technology to make the lives of people better then where does the comfort stop and the playing God part begins? Am I playing God just because I have a heat source and that means I won't freeze to death in the winter? Should I have died because nature never intended for that techology? Or am I only playing God at the last stage when people are close to death? If I use technology to cure a common cold is that interfering in the natural path of life because that person could've died from it?

What if it is a consequence of our technology that made the person terminally ill in the first place? Isn't it my right to try and correct that?
(I know I'm straying into a more abstract path from what you said)

Unfortunately, I find myself agreeing with your antagonists quite a bit XD

Well, the fact that I can get you guys to theorize and discuss like this means my book is a success. Cause I primarily want to invite interesting discussions like this.

As for the previous point, the interesting part is that the father and one sibling wanted to keep the mother alive, while the older sibling wanted her to pass on and stop suffering. They blamed the rest of the family for prolonging her suffering because they were too weak to deal with the loss.

The classic keeping up hope vs. being unable to let go

Prisma*Illya wrote:

So at another point, a story is told about a family where the mother was terminally ill and wasting away, but instead of letting her die in peace, they kept trying to do more tests and surgeries to keep her alive.

A lot of people argue that euthanasia and pulling feeding tubes and such is "playing God," whereas the antagonist thinks this technology is man-made, and by using it to keep people alive that would otherwise die, they are the ones "playing God."

In their words:

"Death is a part of life. Allowing death is not playing God. Chaining the sick and weary to life is."

Ah, Lol, you edited
Okay, so it's basically at the end point where the dilemma occurs, like what to do with Comatose patients, etc.

Well it still is basically consent. And also wealth/resources factor in.
Some people (family or the person itself) may not have the funds to keep the patient alive and thus may be forced to "pull the plug". While the rich may keep pumping in whatever is needed to keep the patient artificially alive.

Then again time is also the factor in this (body or souls or whatever)
EG: A person has the money/resources to keep ones brother alive till the body heals or changes for the better but instead after a few months or years, the body gives up and dies all on its own even with being hooked up to all kinds of things.

~~ While in another case, the person wakes up after 3 years or so later. So if you had pulled the plug, they would have died. Will the masses then argue that the person should be murdered because he is an abomination, some one who was meant to die but yet lives due to outside involvement?


People not guarded from sickness (including old age) and thus succumbing to death is the current norm. Pulling the plug on someone dying because they are in pain (or not) has nothing to do with acting as a God. Saving some one is also not acting as a God.

Saving someone is a human trait. Saving someone from pain and misery by "pulling the plug" is a human trait of mercy (depending on the circumstances.)

If the patient can not give his consent then it is up to the person who first placed the patient in the "artificial" condition to choose mercy killing or trying to let the person live for as long as the body would hold under the current technology. (You acted and thus now it is your responsibility to follow through with it and deal with the consequences.)


The device is man-made and thus it is used to prolong life or escape death and thus goes against the natural order; that is invention not Godliness.

Pulling the plug (or succumbing to death) after exhausting all resources, is due to lack of ones ability to keep the other alive.



"Chaining the sick and weary to life, is playing God."
They are only prolonging death. The person still has a slight chance of recovery.
If a Person who wants to stay alive by artificial means, is thus called a Heretic and he can't live with that, then he should look for a religion/community that suits his views/accepts him. OR fight for his beliefs.

Pulling feeding tubes and such is "playing God,"

Both arguments are favoring death
So, basically:
If you extend a life, you are playing God. (You kill that life and you make these people happy)
If you kill a life after it is being extended, you are playing God. (You keep the person alive and you make these people happy)

So either ways; you do nothing and let a person die, you make someone happy but if you kill someone after they are being saved, you make one faction happy who want natural death but get called a God


What exactly do you want?
Killing a life is wrong, unless it is specifically asked for.
Saving a life is not wrong, if it's asked to be done so, even if it goes against the natural order.

Killing a life after it is being saved, makes you a God... if that is what a faction wants to believe, then they are wrong. It is not up to them to decide who lives or dies. The person who placed them in the "man-made" state decides when to "kill" them.

Saving a life, makes you a God... if that is what a faction wants to believe, then why not? That person would be considered a God, only till the moment the patient dies.



Lol, A thousand apologies for the long ramblings of this Ghost

:P:

Geez, Ghosty lol. That's a mouthful.

NoIn-LoKi wrote:

The classic keeping up hope vs. being unable to let go

Indeed. This is the one antagonist's "start of darkness," if you will. You can kind of see the natural progression of thought here.

She sees her mother in suffering and wants the suffering to end. >

Why won't her father let it end? It must be because he can't live without her. >

Why not? It must be because he isn't strong enough to cope. >

People who keep the sick and suffering alive are therefore too weak to let them go. Alternatively, people who are afraid to die are too weak to accept death and the natural order of life. >

Weakness is suffering. Weakness is a terrible thing. >

Where else is this kind of weakness happening? If this weakness is spreading all through society, it will natural fail. >

Society must be made to be stronger for the good of mankind.

yeah sure, if one is suffering, then you try a little to ease the pain, to make it better but if all else fails then you may let them go. If that is what needs to be done and the one in suffering is conscious enough to allow it.

If one is in a "dead-state" then they feel no pain or suffering from all the probing and pumping. So it really doesn't matter if you let them live on or "pull the plug". It only matters of how you will live on with the action of pulling the plug, because if they are simply "sleeping" peacefully (unresponsive Coma, etc) then why not let them sleep, in hope of having them wake up some time in the future.

If the Father placed the wife under the man-made support system and in doing so she is being tormented (is still in pain) then bear seeing her in pain for a short while while you try to stabilize but if it doesn't help then ask her if she wants to "drift off" :RIP:

The Daughter pulling the plug or anyone doing it on their own, is mercy killing, which may or may-not be considered as murder.


The Daughter then going all "trying to save mankind"... well it depends on how she does it, but personally I wouldn't take that route. I would leave Mankind to deal with itself But that's just me

Prisma*Illya wrote:

Geez, Ghosty lol. That's a mouthful.

People who keep the sick and suffering alive are therefore too weak to let them go. Alternatively, people who are afraid to die are too weak to accept death and the natural order of life. >

Okay that is a possibility but only if abused for too long. Because then like I said above, it can be looked as torture. Even if one is doing it "for-the-sufferers-own-good" (in hopes of curing them).

Doing it for too little, one will argue, they didn't try hard enough
Doing if for too long, one will argue, they tortured them (to death)

So the age old question, How much is too much?

\
For the second part:
So is the Daughter like okay with people committing suicide (and or Murder-of the sufferers) because it would be like bringing death onto others or oneself, all in the name of Natural Order?

Like, does she have a moral compass. Where does she draw the line? Does she think being an oppressor is fine, as long as people learn to let go which to her entails that they have become stronger and lost their aversion to death. Or even lose their emotions and or humanity.

I mean, she does seem like the type who will continue to go to the extremes for-her-own-personal-cause.

Shadow-Heart wrote:

yeah sure, if one is suffering, then you try a little to ease the pain, to make it better but if all else fails then you may let them go. If that is what needs to be done and the one in suffering is conscious enough to allow it.

If one is in a "dead-state" then they feel no pain or suffering from all the probing and pumping. So it really doesn't matter if you let them live on or "pull the plug". It only matters of how you will live on with the action of pulling the plug, because if they are simply "sleeping" peacefully (unresponsive Coma, etc) then why not let them sleep, in hope of having them wake up some time in the future.

If the Father placed the wife under the man-made support system and in doing so she is being tormented (is still in pain) then bear seeing her in pain for a short while while you try to stabilize but if it doesn't help then ask her if she wants to "drift off" :RIP:

The Daughter pulling the plug or anyone doing it on their own, is mercy killing, which may or may-not be considered as murder.

The Daughter then going all "trying to save mankind"... well it depends on how she does it, but personally I wouldn't take that route. I would leave Mankind to deal with itself But that's just me

The mother was conscious the whole time.

With a response like that, she'd consider you part of the problem. People who just "wait on the world to change."

One needs to change themselves/adapt to suit their needs, why bother with the entire world. Let it fall into chaos. Light/Change only shines through darkness. When all is destroyed, reconstruction can take place without hindrance and this time something new and better may emerge. Saying that, I would not entice the destruction, I rather prefer it happens on its own, that life runs its course. If I can adapt and or live without any problems hindering me then I'm good. May seem selfish but I'm still good with it. But I definitely won't go about bringing change to the world so that they see through my eyes. I do not need companionship or be surrounded by common factors to allow my mind to be at ease.

That Daughter, in her mind she may be thinking that she is doing the world a favour, that she is making it better but she is not thinking that maybe these other people don't need her "saving". All who do, they are free to flock around her and make her happy, make her feel special. But I would rather she stays away from me and not force her thinking on me, lest I run out of corners and be forced to lash out in self-defense Do not onto others that you wouldn't want to be done onto yourself.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey our site appears to be safe and kid/family friendly, according to this site
wwweb.jextensions.com/rpbastion.forumotion.com

She knows most people don't want it, but that's because people resist any notion of change, even if it will do them good.

Anyway, she's not really interested in your opinion. But your soul will be quite useful. *steals*

What is that picture from? :0

Well, I did an image search for "steal soul" and Bing led me to that image.
Reverse-Image searching via Google Images, led me to Deviant Art.

http://fairytas.deviantart.com/art/My-Last-Breath-221370807
http://fairytas.deviantart.com/art/Last-Breath-close-up-221377311
http://fairytas.deviantart.com/art/I-put-a-spell-on-you-330802562

http://fairytas.deviantart.com/art/Judgement-209849394
http://fairytas.deviantart.com/art/The-Dark-Queen-208326696
http://fairytas.deviantart.com/art/The-Queen-of-Dark-205484923


It's apparently a model :/

lol, some of these were pretty hilarious descriptions

Taken from:
http://www.seventhsanctum.com/generate.php?Genname=fantasycross


The energetic, boring, uneducated male half-Will-O-The-Wisp elementalist who is dependent on medication. He has a masculine build. His wardrobe is odd. He appears human - but has the personality and habits of his non-human ancestor.


The smart, antisocial female half-Dragon Turtle assassin. Her body is a mismatched composite of her human and non-human ancestry.


The tough, world-weary male half-Sphinx shaman. His wardrobe is flattering. He appears as an 'humanized' version of his non-human parent, but the result is very disturbing.

\\\\\\\\\\
//////////

The clueless, complacent male half-Pegasus conjurer who is part of a secret society. He has a boyish build. His wardrobe is revealing. His non-human ancestry gives him a strangely attractive appearance.

The illogical female half-Hydra inquisitor. She has a muscular build. Her wardrobe is elegant. Her non-human ancestry gives her a strangely attractive appearance.

The altruistic male half-Hydra alchemist who can't resist a fight. His non-human ancestry gives him a horribly inhuman appearance.

The irrational, secretive, inexperienced male half-Fairy inquisitor who can't resist a fight. His wardrobe is severe. His body is that of a human for the most part, but his head is more like that of his non-human parent.