Type Moon General
It really isn't. This line:
Is just "thing will change", and is completely neutral. You need to establish current "valuation system" as good, and next system as worse, for such change to be "bad"... which is something that other people were doing by default. So far, you are just stating neutral shit and pretending that it means something. Like, try and match debating standard around here, as low as it can get.
This line:
Is "muh free will", which was already covered(and you decided to ignore my rebuttal), and has absolutely nothing to do with "things will change" because it's its own argument. You could drop whole change thing and just focus on him not being opt-it.
fallacies
Puyo Mage
The paradigm of valuation imposed by Amakusa has no meaning to current humans.
It's not good or bad. It's meaningless. It makes things meaningless. It makes things worthless.
Why do humans attach worth to effort and time expended? Because we're finite.
What would happen if a human had infinite time? Time itself would no longer have worth.
Worth attached to things related to time scarcity would vanish.
What kind of valuation paradigm would emerge if time scarcity vanished?
Money would be worthless, because the value of money is based on scarcity.
Labor would be worthless, because the value of labor is only meaningful in a context where scarcity exists.
Non-monetary capital would be worthless, because all things could eventually be acquired, assuming that there isn't a zero-sum game going on somehow; assuming that the 3rd Magic doesn't make it worthless by simply letting people materialize anything.
Libido and romantic feelings based in reproductive drive would be of questionable worth, because whether reproduction itself remains necessary or desirable is a question mark.
Food would be worthless, because eating is no longer a necessity.
Consumption to serve a host of biological needs would be worthless. Old age and infirmity are completely optional and reversible.
Energy would be absent of value, because under the 3rd Magic, everyone becomes a perpetual motion engine.
Communal association with other humans for purposes of self-protection would be worthless, because there's no chance that anyone can die. Can physical pain still happen? Maybe it can be defeated by the 3rd Magic. The practical expression of favor toward family members might be worthless, because the worth of the resources that one would expend upon family members is also defined by scarcity.
Given that everyone has the 3rd, can humans simply make clones of themselves, fully grown?
Would hedonism have worth?
In the current valuation paradigm, pleasurable stimulus is distinguished from non-pleasurable stimulus in how difficult it is to obtain -- and the resources that are expended in obtaining it are subject to scarcity.
How would we regard pleasurable stimulus if we had infinite time; if time scarcity did not exist?
Can the 3rd Magic be tuned to provide unending pleasure stimulus? If yes, and unending pleasure becomes the norm, why bother with any other hedonism?
It would be an unimaginable world.
What kind of economy would even emerge?
Humans right now would have absolutely no context to determine what kind of psychology; what kind of social behavior would emerge if such a thing came to pass. Any kind of "worth" that's defined under Amakusa's paradigm would be completely absent of valid evaluation to current human judgment.
More simply: We can't imagine what a society of humans where all individuals are immortals would look like.
Your argument seems to be, "well, if tragedy and pain and death and mortality all go away, it must be good" -- but that's not actually how it would play out. The bad things that exist within the current valuation paradigm would be eliminated, yes. However, humans who are not presently immortal have no way of comprehending the valuation paradigm rendered by immortality. At infinite time and unending life, things that don't seem bad right now might be. We know that things we find to be good might become completely worthless.
How do we even define if it's an improvement? What if there are downsides to an unending existence that we can't currently imagine?
And no, I don't particularly see a need for me to establish that Amakusa's paradigm is somehow "bad" in order to validate my opinion.
If you click back, this conversation began with a statement of a personal opinion on my part. What happened subsequent was that you commented on my opinion, and began an effort to "defeat" it on logical grounds. When my responses failed to meet to your standards of debate, you gave that my opinion was essentially stating the obvious and pretending that it means something; that I should put in more effort, because I'm espousing something stupid.
No, you don't understand. It's just a personal opinion. It doesn't need to meet any particular standard, and you're free to regard it as worthless and stupid all you like.
Last edited:
I mean she's kind of a robot as a person.Meanwhile I am just
World-ending issues aside Ophelia was kinda of a bitch to Surtr-kun (joke) and most of her characters basically consisted of being really thirsty for Mashu and Kirshtaria
I kinda stopped pondering about whatever the shit Nasu and his harem of shitty writers try to pass of as deep and just enjoy the characters
She's not called a Valkyrie for nothing.
Otherwise eventually mankind will become walking soul people if they manage to get to the goodest of ends and progress. But they're definitely not ready. Plus if you want to talk about immortality/people with free time look at some tsuki stuff, and Scathach and discuss their things.
Violation of Rule 4 - Spaghetti-posting
Oh boy.
Your entire premise lies on this one line, but you didn't bother proving it. Rest of this wall of text has zero worth without it. Try and work this point instead of smashing your keyboard in hope that people won't actually read your shit and miss that you didn't bother to establish basis of your entire argument.
We will still have to build and create, and time required for that hast nothing to do with our death not being there.
Also limited resources and heat death of universe. Dunno about you, but I'd rather not spend endless amount time in dark void, so I'd work to stop that. Im sure many others would concur.
That is idiotic. Death is bad, and only exists because we still have no way to get rid of it. Getting rid of it is a positive thing. Fact that I can't perfectly predict its overall impact of society is of no importance.
Really, I like to steer this argument towards "making humans immune to all diseases" because it's same fucking thing except people are not being pointlessly dumb over it.
Answer is, of course, who fucking cares. If there are additional issues, we will solve them as well. That's all there is to it.
Also, going for shitty "l-lets stop here" while trying to get last word is bad manners. If you don't want to have this conversation, just stop posting. No one cares about who "wins" or "loses" rando internet argument.
Citation needed.
Why?
Citation needed.
I would citation needed this as well, but I already pointed out that "competitiveness" is what makes people compete with each other, which often manifests as finishing something before another, so you are just wrong here. Time has worth unrelated to one's life.
Your entire premise lies on this one line, but you didn't bother proving it. Rest of this wall of text has zero worth without it. Try and work this point instead of smashing your keyboard in hope that people won't actually read your shit and miss that you didn't bother to establish basis of your entire argument.
"Time scarcity" is a concept you just made up, so no.
Of course, this will all be true if you took your made up concept at face value. We won't, so this is all rubbish.
Except Amakusa is not creating infinite amount of resources.. so good job on making my point for me I guess?
We will still have to build and create, and time required for that hast nothing to do with our death not being there.
We don't have infinite time - any amount of finite time will at no point turn to "infinite". Just wanted to point that out.
Also limited resources and heat death of universe. Dunno about you, but I'd rather not spend endless amount time in dark void, so I'd work to stop that. Im sure many others would concur.
At this point you are just making scenarios up.
Completely neutral thing. Today's world would be completely unimaginable to someone living in ancient Uruk, and yet here we are.
And your argument is literally "change is bad". You dress it up in pretty but ultimately worthless semantics, but the core is there - we can't predict the outcome, therefore we shouldn't try at all.
That is idiotic. Death is bad, and only exists because we still have no way to get rid of it. Getting rid of it is a positive thing. Fact that I can't perfectly predict its overall impact of society is of no importance.
Really, I like to steer this argument towards "making humans immune to all diseases" because it's same fucking thing except people are not being pointlessly dumb over it.
You could ask same question for literally every single thing ever. Making so black people are not second class citizens? How is that an improvement? What if there are unintended consequences?
Answer is, of course, who fucking cares. If there are additional issues, we will solve them as well. That's all there is to it.
"Personal opinion" is not a shield you can hide behind to defend from critique. If you don't want your point to be engaged and argued in debate that focuses on precisely that, you can keep it to yourself. By typing out your viewpoint you enter the debate and others, such as yours truly, can engage with them.
Also, going for shitty "l-lets stop here" while trying to get last word is bad manners. If you don't want to have this conversation, just stop posting. No one cares about who "wins" or "loses" rando internet argument.
Last edited:
GilliamYaeger
M'crazy.
Why is this stupid conversation still going?
- Location
- Plato's Cave
Because people treat someone expressing an opinion counter to one they hold as an attack on themselves, and thus feel the need to prove themselves as being in the right, even if such a thing is nonexistent or meaningless.
That rational debate on the internet is almost impossible doesn't help.
Second doesn't mention time at all, third only mentioned as marketing trick(specifically sales, or product being pulled out), and only the third one mentioned how you can do finite amount of stuff per unit of time, which is not enough to push your concept. Mind you, each article talked at length about what scarcity is, and they barely entertained your notion.
In other words, when called out you decided to put zero effort, google concept your are making up and hope that I won't click on links and ctrl+f time.
Also, when wanting to use other sources, you need to quote and bold relevant parts instead of expecting others to do work for you. That's just good manners.
fallacies
Puyo Mage
Eh.
You talk about manners, but I haven't so far described your arguments as worthless, the lowest point of the debate, stating the obvious, pretending that something meaningless means something, of zero worth, randomly making things up, just smashing your keyboard, shit, cowardice, of zero effort, or any other manner of derogation.
Last edited:
Vanargand
So tired.....
I dunno I think stating humanity just flat out stops once they gain any form of immortality is a tad,...foolish?
Like say it come with caveats you saying people won't research how to overcome it
Or that all researches and innovations will just flat out stop and society as we know will immediately collapse
I mean eventually there would be problems sure but people won't stop being people just because
Or that they do everything they do because one day they'll die. Like hell everyone does things or apply value because the thought 'One day I am gonna die' is always on 100% nonstop heck if it were like that it'd be the opposite people wouldn't want to do shit because well if I am gonna die and not enjoy its results then what's the fucking point ensues
I dunno man Nasu almost feels naive at times, okay I get it this is a fictional work its stuff where that kind of thoughts are meant to fly wild but...well no matter what Nasu says about the futurrrreeee we only see the past being fuckhuge awesome
And yes I know Chaldea is a effort of present living humans (Romani aside) and is only using Servants as weapons or Ritsuka's madlad efforts is what caused all the servants to appear and aid in the fight in the Solomon Temple but even still...eh?
Like say it come with caveats you saying people won't research how to overcome it
Or that all researches and innovations will just flat out stop and society as we know will immediately collapse
I mean eventually there would be problems sure but people won't stop being people just because
Or that they do everything they do because one day they'll die. Like hell everyone does things or apply value because the thought 'One day I am gonna die' is always on 100% nonstop heck if it were like that it'd be the opposite people wouldn't want to do shit because well if I am gonna die and not enjoy its results then what's the fucking point ensues
I dunno man Nasu almost feels naive at times, okay I get it this is a fictional work its stuff where that kind of thoughts are meant to fly wild but...well no matter what Nasu says about the futurrrreeee we only see the past being fuckhuge awesome
And yes I know Chaldea is a effort of present living humans (Romani aside) and is only using Servants as weapons or Ritsuka's madlad efforts is what caused all the servants to appear and aid in the fight in the Solomon Temple but even still...eh?
Last edited:
- Location
- Somewhere
See, I don't get this argument. I've never thought that way. If I'm gonna die, I want to cram as much as possible into my life, not stop caring. The only thing that keeps me from procranstinating, a lot of the time, is the fact that a day is a limited amount of time, a year is limited, and my life is limited. If I only have a little bit of time, why waste it?
- Location
- In you're house RIGHT NOW!
It relies on a lot of assumptions that can turn people off at least.
Staff Notice - This is getting into unwarranted hostility
Do tell what this has to do with your quotes, or me pointing out that you just googled out random shit because you can't seem to put any effort in this debate? Don't forget folks, fallacies responded to few hundred words of my rebuttal with three hastily googled out links, and when pointed out that he didn't even read them, he is now trying to play victim to get heat off himself.
Because fuck me and my effort to engage him, right?
Now, instead of bawwing how mean I am, you could try and argue why your points are not completely worthless. You know, do that whole debate thing. Although that would require you to put in some effort and engage my points, which doesn't seem to be something you are inclined to do.
Madou Sutegobana
Autocorrupt has been disabled.
- Location
- Twin Realms Mandala
Well, I had some thoughts I had wanted to add to the debate, but this argument became a flame war, which has since become personal attacks.
Could this discussion be moved to it's own thread, and maybe everyone involved try to be kInder to each other?
Could this discussion be moved to it's own thread, and maybe everyone involved try to be kInder to each other?
fallacies
Puyo Mage
A character performs X action.
I say: "I don't like this action. It would cause things to be very different. What if it turns out bad?"
You reply with: "You could say this with practically anything. So what? If there are problems, we will solve it."
Therefore, what? I can't say that I don't like it?
My reasons for not liking it have to meet your standards of validity?
Or more to the point, I've laid out the reasons that I subjectively don't like it.
Your response to this has been to ask for "evidence" to back up all of these subjective reasons; and then to just dismiss any elaborations I make. They have to have "proof" or "citations," or else they're apparently garbage.
At that point, it would seem that any response I make is likely to have the same result in the end.
Last edited:
Well assuming post third magic humans still think like pre- third magic humans we do know of at least one problem they will still have. That being boredom. There is a lot of stuff humans do not because it has any objective value, but because we don't react well to long periods of not doing anything. Even if you don't care about if your life has value or not you end up doing stuff to keep yourself occupied. Being immortal just adds more time that needs to be filled. Sure time itself is not significant as a resource (well unless used to measure stuff), but because well we don't react well to long periods of not doing anything, and unless stuff like boredom and want are removed that's unlikely to change. Meanwhile if it is the immortals probably won't have a value paradigm or do anything unless its programed into them.
Assuming the later isn't the case for post third magic humans they would likely share a similar main value with the Dead Apostles. Specifically entertainment. They won't need civilization anymore (or at least the resource aspects of it), and not everyone cares about stuff like 'doing something to give their life meaning' or 'discovering new things' or even 'progress and development', but if boredom is still possible their going to want to do something.
Because you keep make tons of positive statements with no evidence?
You can't just say "yes" and expect us to just nod along. Asking for citations, or asking why, is just polite way of saying "no".
fallacies
Puyo Mage
In economics, there's a principle called scarcity.
Things are high in value / worth / cost because they aren't abundant.
Conversely, things that are abundant are low in value.
Scarcity applies to time. Time is valuable because everyone has very limited amounts of it.
In the economics of labor, you are paid for the work you do because the time you put in is presumed to carry some sort of monetary value, based on the service you render.
Access to the 3rd Magic allows for immortality.
A being made immortal by the 3rd Magic is canonically described as a perpetual motion engine, which would be a violation of the laws of physics. Their existence produces more energy than they consume, violating thermodynamics.
You know the Heat Death of the Universe? Violation of thermodynamics surmounts that.
Furthermore, access to even the incomplete 3rd Magic allows for the manifestation of, among other things Heroic Spirits and their Noble Phantasms.
Absent of access to the 3rd Magic, Chaldea can already mess around with Saint Graphs, editing and changing them to some degree -- allowing for changes to the bodies of Servants.
Immortals with access to the full 3rd Magic should be able to edit their bodies however they want. Hypothetically, this would include the unlimited pleasure stimulus that I briefly discussed.
It is reasonable to conclude that if every human had access to the complete 3rd Magic, the problem of scarcity in economics would be vastly redefined, to the point of making the system of valuation used by non-immortal humans completely obsolete.
The hypothetical consequences of this were listed in my previous post. Those three links that you accused me of not even reading described the economic meaning of scarcity and the impact of the concept of scarcity on human psychology. I had hoped that you would read it and understand the general gist of what I was attempting to express. Yes, including that third link.
At this point, I expect that you'll go through this post and again ask for citations on every single point --accuse me of making up or baselessly claiming things; of stating the obvious and so forth. I mean, that's what you've been doing since your first response. Therefore, I'll simply say:
You haven't explained any reason that I should agree with you, or that my opinion must necessarily meet your standard of validity in order to simply be stated.
Last edited:
Alert: Thread Policy
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
thread policy
This is neither the time nor the place for a scarcity argument. Take it elsewhere.
all fictions
I hate you! (it's not against the rules!)
- Location
- Mons Regius
- Pronouns
- He/Him
To come back to Amakusa, his depiction in the Apocrypha manga is great:
blast flame
How far will we go if it means lighting the way?
- Location
- Perth, Australia
- Pronouns
- They/Them
Huh, I've just heard that originally Apocrypha was thought of as a Fate MMO. That players would decide to either join the Amakusa faction or the Jeanne faction. And then it got adapted into a linear story.
It's certainly a issue that works well for splitting a community in half and making them fight! I think it might have actually worked better as an MMO.
It's certainly a issue that works well for splitting a community in half and making them fight! I think it might have actually worked better as an MMO.
- Location
- Ireland
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Amakusa wasn't part of the original Apoc concept. He came when Higashide took over and turned it into a LN.
WildCardFool
A Reaction Pic for nearly every occasion
- Location
- Earth
So after finishing Part 1 of Grand Order in English, I have a question about Solomon/Romani.
Noble Phantasms can be watered down to integral parts of a Heroic Spirit's legend. I understand Ars Nova as Solomon's "one human Noble Phantasm", him giving up his powers. I kind of understand Ars Paulina as some kind of Reality Marble representing God's will manifesting in Solomon or something along those lines as Solomon's past nature as an inhuman being.
What about Ars Almadel Salomonis? It's stated to be "the | of Original Sin". I read that to mean something like "the line of original sin", but I'm not sure how exactly that plays into Solomon's legend, nor why it manifests as the ability to incinerate things/people and turn them into magical energy. Any help here?
Noble Phantasms can be watered down to integral parts of a Heroic Spirit's legend. I understand Ars Nova as Solomon's "one human Noble Phantasm", him giving up his powers. I kind of understand Ars Paulina as some kind of Reality Marble representing God's will manifesting in Solomon or something along those lines as Solomon's past nature as an inhuman being.
What about Ars Almadel Salomonis? It's stated to be "the | of Original Sin". I read that to mean something like "the line of original sin", but I'm not sure how exactly that plays into Solomon's legend, nor why it manifests as the ability to incinerate things/people and turn them into magical energy. Any help here?