- Location
- Hampden Park
Or it could be that as Mohammed is a more recent prophet the SI thinks that his idea on the punishment for theft is more likely to be in line with the Silver City's current thinking on the issue.
With This Ring (Young Justice SI) (Thread Twelve)
- Thread starter Mr Zoat
- Start date
- Status
Wiggin42
Wage Slave
I'm reminded of all the times a parent would make me say 'I'm Sorry' for hitting another kid on the playground. I never meant it, the other kid knew I didn't mean it, our parents knew I didn't mean it, but no one cared because sincerity isn't the point of an apology; it's purely to give face to the injured party.
Not thinking Zauriel is looking for that kind of non-appology.
Not thinking Zauriel is looking for that kind of non-appology.
HanEmpire
Delicious
Paul needs to believe he screwed up, and then admit it. As it is, he's fine with admitting it and going through with the apology in the sense of getting it out of the way. But the Angel is asking him to do it in a heartfelt manner, which is impossible for Paul unless he changes his beliefs to be more in line with the Abrahamic religions.
- Location
- Earth
Called it! :lol
Wow did he get lucky, they sent DC's version of Castial.
Really Paul? An Angel gives you an out with the only cavet being you apologize, and your refusing to do it...
I regret I only have one Picard facepalm to give.
Not apologize, repent. Two different things. He doesn't and won't regret what he did, so he can't repent.
- Location
- Earth, 3rd rock from the Sun
Repent isn't saying you are sorry, it is actually being remorseful.
And the angel just stated it could tell at a glance whether Paul had eaten the fruit itself or not.
Mystical scenes are a thing. Being insincere to someone who has a good chance of being able to tell sounds like it could hurt the ongoing negotiations. And as others have pointed out, possibly have Theological Implications™. Asking the Lord for forgiveness comes with the implicit acknowledgment that being you are invoking is, in fact, the Lord, with all that implies.
This is the Impression I have been getting. Paul performance re: 'Heaven and the Fruit of knowledge of Good and Evil' has been lackluster in dealing with this with the usual 'social lubrication' we have seen him capable of, because he has garnered a certain level of contempt for the Silver City.
Rome probably dictated some laws to the client states. That doesn't mean Rome had the same laws.
But this I see as a logical train of thought that makes more sense.
Last edited:
- Location
- USA
But... didn't he have to admit he went to far and admit he was wrong to jade in just the last arc? How is this any different?
Edit: or did I completely miss the point of the last arc?
Edit: or did I completely miss the point of the last arc?
Ganurath
Literal Enthusiast
- Location
- A Valid Location
- Pronouns
- He/Him
In the last arc, he reflected on his actions, and genuinely felt he'd crossed a line. This has not happened here.
How is "Prophet" counted? I mean, what makes Mohammed different from prophets of various USA-based christian sects?
- Location
- Oblivion
What reason does he have to assume that Muhammad was an actual prophet of the Silver City?
- Location
- Bay Area
That's a big if, and it's really hard to support that without logically deriving that we should all be wireheading lotus-eaters. Pretty much everything more complex than 'maximum stimulation of the pleasure centers' involves some degree of pain or suffering.
- Location
- Hampden Park
Basically, guesswork. Objectively, the SI has no way to determine which self-proclaimed prophets are actual prophets, and which double-Jonahs are prophets and keeping quiet about it. However, it isn't an unreasonable guess.
zhuull
SB still lying to protect Racists what else is new
So you want him to lie to an angel? Because I assure Paul is not sorry he did what he did. I imagine that along with the concerns @HanEmpire raised about conversion are the main drivers of Paul's refusal here.
Remember, Repenting isn't just saying you're sorry, you have to actually mean it.
**Edited as a tagged the wrong person originally
Last edited:
- Location
- U.S.
I mean, it is directly associated with a very literal fire-and-brimstone endless-torture hell. I'd rather dislike any religion that was demonstratably real and had something like that in it.
- Location
- Argentina
So any reason why he couldn't have turned Blaze into an Elemental instead? It worked for that Succubus and doesn't risk a war with a God.
Mad Science Paul: And thats why I revive people using mad science instead!
Oh El: Doesn't the Frankstein method end with the subject having no pass life memories?
Mad Science Paul: Yeah so what? Do you think is a good idea for people to remember their existence on Heaven, Hell or Whatever afterlife they were in?
Oh El: No but...
Mad Science Paul: There is dozen of ways to get those people to get their memories back LATER. And my method didn't star a Holy War!
Oh El: Fair enough.
Mad Science Paul: And thats why I revive people using mad science instead!
Oh El: Doesn't the Frankstein method end with the subject having no pass life memories?
Mad Science Paul: Yeah so what? Do you think is a good idea for people to remember their existence on Heaven, Hell or Whatever afterlife they were in?
Oh El: No but...
Mad Science Paul: There is dozen of ways to get those people to get their memories back LATER. And my method didn't star a Holy War!
Oh El: Fair enough.
- Location
- Earth
That's assuming anything except maximum pleasure is equivalent to pain. One could have more complex experiences via gradients of pleasure; for one moment or thing to be less than maximally pleasurable is not painful, especially if we remove that pesky thing where you're constantly comparing every good thing to the best thing. And that's ignoring the possibility of different TYPES of pleasure; one could experience complex experiences via intricate interweaving of satisfaction, sexual pleasure, the feeling produced by finding something humorous, fun, happiness/joy, etc.
Olivebirdy
mook.
You have the wrong punishment. If you can't return the original item, you need to return double its monetary value.
shepsquared
Erratic Aussie
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
He probably assumed reversing demonic energies into heavenly energies was easier than reusing the Star Sapphire on someone for whom love isn't a primary part of their psyche.
Avalon Aurora
Eldritch Horror
- Location
- Unspecified Quantum Location
The sorts of elementals he can turn her into have foibles that make them unsuitable for a Justice League member, and wouldn't require her to repent her actions as a demoness enough to justify her joining the league and make her trustable enough in it. Additionally, they wouldn't be as effective a counter against hell-magic and Saturnus as he intends her to be, and it wouldn't sever her connections to hell strongly enough to protect her from an empowered Saturnus in certain respects. If he wasn't intending her to join the League to fight Saturnus, it would be a viable way to stop her being a demoness, but that isn't all he is trying to do.
- Location
- Bay Area
No, it isn't assuming submaximal pleasure is pain; submaximal pleasures just can be shown to require suffering. That falls out of poking various forms of positive experience and examining them closely. For examples: Humor involves a butt of the joke, which is suffering. Minor, brief suffering, but still. Sexual pleasure is intertwined with anticipatory desire, which is unpleasant and, in many situations, slightly painful. Satisfaction inherently requires a period of dissatisfaction preceding it, or it's meaningless; dissatisfaction is another form of (usually-)minor suffering, and rarely a brief one. Fun is difficult to distinguish from pleasure with any hard boundary, but most boundaries would say that it involves some form of contest or struggle, which requires the frustration of not having succeeded yet, and the potential for failure.
Human values cannot be reduced to valuing pleasure, except by modifying your definition of "pleasure" to "things humans value", which is not a useful move. Human values are complex.
And, separately, the 0 point is totally arbitrary, so who can actually say which things are net-pleasurable and which are net-suffering, other than the maximal and minimal pleasures attainable?
In moral debates like this, suffering is generally distinguished from pain for that reason. Masochists enjoy pain rather than suffering because of it (for most types of pain, some terms and restrictions apply, offerings may vary depending on location and vendor, see box for details) Pain can be pleasant; suffering cannot. Suffering is specifically redefined as a term of art for "that aspect of experiences which is unpleasant and has no redeeming qualities with respect to pleasure".
Last edited:
Silverias
Seeing is Believing
- Location
- Squiddy Places
Actually, no joke...OL's in the right here.
Even if he apologized, he wouldn't mean it. He feels every thing he's done so far has been justified. You have to be repentant to seek forgiveness from God. If someone had gotten hurt, or if he had to do more than theft, OL might be willing to show some regret, but in the face of how this is going, he has absolutely no reason to.
This is not to say that he's in the right for not feeling sorry for the theft, but he's in the right for not apologizing since he doesn't.
Even if he apologized, he wouldn't mean it. He feels every thing he's done so far has been justified. You have to be repentant to seek forgiveness from God. If someone had gotten hurt, or if he had to do more than theft, OL might be willing to show some regret, but in the face of how this is going, he has absolutely no reason to.
This is not to say that he's in the right for not feeling sorry for the theft, but he's in the right for not apologizing since he doesn't.
- Location
- Earth
You're assuming all of these feelings precede events similarly to how humans currently experience things. When I speak of satisfaction or pleasure, I speak of it in isolation of the circumstances that would create it; merely as a "paint" that we can create use to craft a variety of experiences. Essentially, I'm talking about engineering a new framework for the relationship between our stimuli and computation and our qualia. How one would go about doing such a thing is another matter however; there's little we can predict on such a subject given that we don't currently know how to objectively measure or observe things like qualia.
I find it difficult to find the right words to communicate what I'm trying to communicate here, but I hope I'm getting my meaning across. I suspect I'd have an easier time if I studied philosophy more.
He might be able to apologize for his anti-angelic racism (assuming them to be monstrously fascist automatons with no free will or ability to reason based on what he knew to be biased unreliable sources) which led him to steal the fruit, rather than getting it legitimately.
- Status