History Headscratchers / SwordOfTruth

18th Mar '17 6:14:17 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** That'd be in keeping with the [[UsefulNotes/Objectivism Objectivist]] view of communism: that it's an impossible principle to hold consistently, and thus blatant hypocrisy will inevitably result, which seems born out by actual communist states.

to:

** That'd be in keeping with the [[UsefulNotes/Objectivism [[{{UsefulNotes/Objectivism}} Objectivist]] view of communism: that it's an impossible principle to hold consistently, and thus blatant hypocrisy will inevitably result, which seems born out by actual communist states.



** Actually, the idea that the USSR was a technological powerhouse to rival the USA was a myth- one propagated by the Soviet state and believed by Western sympathizers and enemies alike. It was certainly modernized from the Romanov era (albeit via a bloody, violent and not entirely competent process), but other than military and to an extent space tech, it was actually somewhat behind most Western countries in most respects. The Cold War happened because the Soviets had nukes and giant armies and controlled a sizable portion of the surface of the Earth, and were trying to expand their influence by sponsoring / directing Communist regimes and revolutions around the globe. The economy and technology actually was kind of stagnant by the end, which is a big part of why it collapsed (war, corruption and incompetence included of course, and that is not saying that no technological progress ''at all'' was ever made or would never have been). And several civilizations, even advanced (and non-communal) ones, went centuries without worrying about advancing all that much, and there is an argument to be made that communal societies really are less likely to innovate (everyone is too content; progress, as it happens, is often a ruthless and pitiless process- which Marx and Engels understood; the British agrarian and industrial revolutions made tons of merchants and artisans redundant, which is where the overworked and underpaid -and underaged- factory workforce came from). Its an obvious Strawman to say that a socialist utopia is by necessity stagnant or primitive, but there is no natural human incentive to innovate or create, especially in a utopia where everyone is happy; Goodkind is simply painting contentment as sloth and backwardness.

to:

** Actually, the idea that the USSR was a technological powerhouse to rival the USA was a myth- one myth-one propagated by the Soviet state and believed by Western sympathizers and enemies alike. It was certainly modernized from the Romanov era (albeit via a bloody, violent and not entirely competent process), but other than military and to an extent space tech, it was actually somewhat behind most Western countries in most respects. The Cold War happened because the Soviets had nukes and giant armies and controlled a sizable portion of the surface of the Earth, and were trying to expand their influence by sponsoring / directing Communist regimes and revolutions around the globe. The economy and technology actually was kind of stagnant by the end, which is a big part of why it collapsed (war, corruption and incompetence included of course, and that is not saying that no technological progress ''at all'' was ever made or would never have been). And several civilizations, even advanced (and non-communal) ones, went centuries without worrying about advancing all that much, and there is an argument to be made that communal societies really are less likely to innovate (everyone is too content; progress, as it happens, is often a ruthless and pitiless process- which process-which Marx and Engels understood; the British agrarian and industrial revolutions made tons of merchants and artisans redundant, which is where the overworked and underpaid -and underaged- factory workforce came from). Its an obvious Strawman to say that a socialist utopia is by necessity stagnant or primitive, but there is no natural human incentive to innovate or create, especially in a utopia where everyone is happy; Goodkind is simply painting contentment as sloth and backwardness.
** It's been argued by some that communism can ''only'' work with a small, simple and close-knit society. After all, a family usually works in a "communist" fashion-parents give their children what they need for free, and the children will (probably) help them out in return later (this was especially true in pre-industrial societies. If you know everyone, there is social pressure which can be brought to bear so everyone pulls their weight and shares, along with negating their distribution problems. Of course, the optimum size for such a society is estimated at about 250.



*** The fact that a person might be proven innocent after the execution is an argument against death penalty as a whole (and I personally agree that's one of the many reasons it's wrong), but it doesn't work in this situation since, if they are called to take confession for legal reason, apparently that person is already condemned to death anyway, so killing in that specific way doesn't really make any difference.\\

to:

*** The fact that a person might be proven innocent after the execution is an argument against the death penalty as a whole (and I personally agree that's one of the many reasons it's wrong), but it doesn't work in this situation since, if they are called to take confession for legal reason, apparently that person is already condemned to death anyway, so killing in that specific way doesn't really make any difference.\\



*** Althought, to be honest, you ''can'' rape someone without touching them (squick territory ahead). You could violate their bodies with sticks or similar things that does not involve personal contact. It would require you to be a horrible people and your victim would really suffer, but that was the idea behind the Quads in the first place, and having a person who could rape multiple Confessors and live to tell the tale would be an invaluable instrument of terror for people used to kill each and every one of their mates. And there's the aformentioned advantage of not having to lose one man for every Confessor. Plus, I'm not sure about this, but completely covering your body (with armor, clothing and likes) wouldn't make actually impossible for Confessors to ''touch'' you, actually saving you from their powers?

to:

*** Althought, Although, to be honest, you ''can'' rape someone without touching them (squick territory ahead). You could violate their bodies with sticks or similar things that does not involve personal contact. It would require you to be a horrible people and your victim would really suffer, but that was the idea behind the Quads in the first place, and having a person who could rape multiple Confessors and live to tell the tale would be an invaluable instrument of terror for people used to kill each and every one of their mates. And there's the aformentioned aforementioned advantage of not having to lose one man for every Confessor. Plus, I'm not sure about this, but completely covering your body (with armor, clothing and likes) wouldn't make actually impossible for Confessors to ''touch'' you, actually saving you from their powers?
26th Sep '16 4:47:06 AM Mantyf
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Althought, to be honest, you ''can'' rape someone without touching them (squick territory ahead). You could violate their bodies with sticks or similar things that does not involve personal contact. It would require you to be a horrible people and your victim would really suffer, but that was the idea behind the Quads in the first place, and having a person who could rape multiple Confessors and live to tell the tale would be an invaluable instrument of terror for people used to kill each and every one of their mates. And there's the aformentioned advantage of not having to lose one man for every Confessor. Plus, I'm not sure about this, but completely covering your body (with armor, clothing and likes) wouldn't make actually impossible for Confessors to ''touch'' you, actually saving you from their powers?
26th Sep '16 4:32:37 AM Mantyf
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** I don't think you can confess someone who's already been confessed, and I imagine confessing a condemned criminal and either A. realizing the man was innocent, and oh, hey, you've taken an innocent man's life or B. hearing in detail exactly what the man did to make him condemned would not exactly put someone in the mood to knock boots. As for the shielding magic, that was something apparently available only to those Wizards in league with the Keeper, and thus unavailable to Confessors.\\

to:

*** I don't think you can confess someone who's already been confessed, and I imagine confessing a condemned criminal and either A. realizing the man was innocent, and oh, hey, you've taken an innocent man's life or B. hearing in detail exactly what the man did to make him condemned would not exactly put someone in the mood to knock boots. As for the shielding magic, that was something apparently available only to those Wizards in league with the Keeper, and thus unavailable to Confessors.Confessors.
*** The fact that a person might be proven innocent after the execution is an argument against death penalty as a whole (and I personally agree that's one of the many reasons it's wrong), but it doesn't work in this situation since, if they are called to take confession for legal reason, apparently that person is already condemned to death anyway, so killing in that specific way doesn't really make any difference.
\\
1st Jun '16 9:12:17 AM TheOneWhoTropes
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** That'd be in keeping with the [[UsefulNotesObjectivism Objectivist]] view of communism: that it's an impossible principle to hold consistently, and thus blatant hypocrisy will inevitably result, which seems born out by actual communist states.

to:

** That'd be in keeping with the [[UsefulNotesObjectivism [[UsefulNotes/Objectivism Objectivist]] view of communism: that it's an impossible principle to hold consistently, and thus blatant hypocrisy will inevitably result, which seems born out by actual communist states.
23rd Mar '15 2:57:41 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Fair enough, but Ayn Rand's theories and RealLife conditions [[{{Main/Firefly}} ain't exactly ever been similar.]] Not only was the USSR a technological powerhouse, as the OP stated, it was also renowned (even in Rand's time) for its high culture, which has actually ''declined'' since the Iron Curtain came down. (Not defending Soviet communism or anything. It was a horrible, corrupt system that had to go. But that doesn't change the facts.)

to:

*** Fair enough, but Ayn Rand's theories and RealLife conditions [[{{Main/Firefly}} [[{{Series/Firefly}} ain't exactly ever been similar.]] Not only was the USSR a technological powerhouse, as the OP stated, it was also renowned (even in Rand's time) for its high culture, which has actually ''declined'' since the Iron Curtain came down. (Not defending Soviet communism or anything. It was a horrible, corrupt system that had to go. But that doesn't change the facts.)
24th Nov '14 12:55:44 PM MrDeath
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Rereading it now, and what Kahlan says is that if you're caught with fire in ''the wrong place'' and ''without approval'', you're dead. So, presumably, Darken Rahl continues to allow his armies to use fire to forge weapons and make food. And at any rate, Rahl's planning to destroy and/or rule the world as a living god within the year, so he couldn't give less of a damn if his edicts make sense.
30th Nov '13 4:37:45 PM Temporary14
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** I never said that she "charged" into fights to the death regularly, but there have been occasions where she's been forced to fight immediately after using her power, such as when she's fighting against the Imperial Order in the second book. Not her usual actions, but it still shows that she is still capable of intense physical activity. The books never state directly what "losing control" really means, only uses euphemisms like "in the throes of passion," so it may or may not take a full orgasm. In regards to this kind of thing being risky, I'd like to point out, again, that all Confessors turn a man into her slave when they take a mate. Some do it only to criminals or other disposables, but a Confessor is legally within her rights to have ''any'' man she wants, even if he's already married and has a family, and is also legally permitted to confess anyone who objects to her mindraping the man she wants. Even if the methods were "risky" they would still be preferable to this kind of system being in place.\\\

to:

*** I never said that she "charged" into fights to the death regularly, but there have been occasions where she's been forced to fight immediately after using her power, such as when she's fighting against the Imperial Order in the second book. Not her usual actions, but it still shows that she is still capable of intense physical activity. The books never state directly what "losing control" really means, only uses euphemisms like "in the throes of passion," so it may or may not take a full orgasm. In regards to this kind of thing being risky, I'd like to point out, again, that all Confessors turn a man into her slave when they take a mate. Some do it only to criminals or other disposables, but a Confessor is legally within her rights to have ''any'' man she wants, even if he's already married and has a family, and is also legally permitted to confess anyone who objects to her mindraping the man she wants. Even if the methods were "risky" they would still be preferable to this kind of system being in place.\\\ \\\
30th Nov '13 4:14:21 PM Temporary14
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** I never said that she "charged" into fights to the death regularly, but there have been occasions where she's been forced to fight immediately after using her power, such as when she's fighting against the Imperial Order in the second book. Not her usual actions, but it still shows that she is still capable of intense physical activity. The books never state directly what "losing control" really means, only uses euphemisms like "in the throes of passion," so it may or may not take a full orgasm. In regards to this kind of thing being risky, I'd like to point out, again, that all Confessors turn a man into her slave when they take a mate. Some do it only to criminals or other disposables, but a Confessor is legally within her rights to have ''any'' man she wants, even if he's already married and has a family, and is also legally permitted to confess anyone who objects to her mindraping the man she wants. Even if the methods were "risky" they would still be preferable to this kind of system being in place. Furthermore, there's still the idea of just using the window in which the Confessor is recovering her power, which there still isn't really any real reason not to. It would leave the Confessor vulnerable, yes, but Confessors still regularly use their powers and are left "vulnerable" without them all getting killed. Confessors are cut off from most of society, yes, but there are still exceptions, with Richard/Kahlan and Magda Searus/Merritt being the canonical examples. Confessors are disliked in the Midlands, yes, but part of that is precisely because of the way that they take mates, which involves innocent people being Confessed.

to:

*** I never said that she "charged" into fights to the death regularly, but there have been occasions where she's been forced to fight immediately after using her power, such as when she's fighting against the Imperial Order in the second book. Not her usual actions, but it still shows that she is still capable of intense physical activity. The books never state directly what "losing control" really means, only uses euphemisms like "in the throes of passion," so it may or may not take a full orgasm. In regards to this kind of thing being risky, I'd like to point out, again, that all Confessors turn a man into her slave when they take a mate. Some do it only to criminals or other disposables, but a Confessor is legally within her rights to have ''any'' man she wants, even if he's already married and has a family, and is also legally permitted to confess anyone who objects to her mindraping the man she wants. Even if the methods were "risky" they would still be preferable to this kind of system being in place. \\\
Furthermore, there's still the idea of just using the window in which the Confessor is recovering her power, which there still isn't really any real reason not to. It would leave the Confessor vulnerable, yes, but Confessors still regularly use their powers and are left "vulnerable" without them all getting killed. Confessors are cut off from most of society, yes, but there are still exceptions, with Richard/Kahlan and Magda Searus/Merritt being the canonical examples. Confessors are disliked in the Midlands, yes, but part of that is precisely because of the way that they take mates, which involves innocent people being Confessed.
30th Oct '13 11:44:04 PM Temporary14
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Seriously, though, the main plot of The Pillars of Creation is completely inconsistent. The Sisters of the Dark come within a hair's breadth of releasing the Keeper of the Underworld through an EvilPlan based on some facts they dug up in one of Emperor Jagang's favorite books. The UnwittingPawn has actually met Jagang, and he knows all about her unique nature which would qualify her for this gambit. Oh, and did we forget that Jagang has the ability to read the Sisters' thoughts at will, and that he's fanatically opposed to the Keeper's agenda? And yet somehow he does nothing whatsoever to stop them from trying to pull it off. What gives?

to:

* Seriously, though, the main plot of The Pillars of Creation is completely inconsistent. The Sisters of the Dark come within a hair's breadth of releasing the Keeper of the Underworld through an EvilPlan based on some facts they dug up in one of Emperor Jagang's favorite books. The UnwittingPawn has actually met Jagang, and he knows all about her unique nature which would qualify her for this gambit. Oh, and did we forget that Jagang has the ability to read lread the Sisters' thoughts at will, and that he's fanatically opposed to the Keeper's agenda? And yet somehow he does nothing whatsoever to stop them from trying to pull it off. What gives?




to:

*** I never said that she "charged" into fights to the death regularly, but there have been occasions where she's been forced to fight immediately after using her power, such as when she's fighting against the Imperial Order in the second book. Not her usual actions, but it still shows that she is still capable of intense physical activity. The books never state directly what "losing control" really means, only uses euphemisms like "in the throes of passion," so it may or may not take a full orgasm. In regards to this kind of thing being risky, I'd like to point out, again, that all Confessors turn a man into her slave when they take a mate. Some do it only to criminals or other disposables, but a Confessor is legally within her rights to have ''any'' man she wants, even if he's already married and has a family, and is also legally permitted to confess anyone who objects to her mindraping the man she wants. Even if the methods were "risky" they would still be preferable to this kind of system being in place. Furthermore, there's still the idea of just using the window in which the Confessor is recovering her power, which there still isn't really any real reason not to. It would leave the Confessor vulnerable, yes, but Confessors still regularly use their powers and are left "vulnerable" without them all getting killed. Confessors are cut off from most of society, yes, but there are still exceptions, with Richard/Kahlan and Magda Searus/Merritt being the canonical examples. Confessors are disliked in the Midlands, yes, but part of that is precisely because of the way that they take mates, which involves innocent people being Confessed.
11th Jun '13 8:09:23 AM MrDeath
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

*** She ''doesn't'' "charge into fights to the death" after using her Confessor power--whenever she uses it in combat, it's at or near the ''end'', and she has to rest up afterward. The few times she uses it to start off a fight (like against the Quad in the first book), it's because it's her only option, and she largely leaves the fighting to the guy she Confessed.\\\
And the original question was finding loopholes such that a Confessor could be with someone she loved--having a loveless match solely for reproduction doesn't really help that point. And it's not just orgasm, it's when the confessor loses control, and it doesn't take a full-on orgasm for someone's concentration to slip. A Confessor is a loaded gun. Counting on her mate to be just bad enough of a lover to never make her lose her concentration is like saying you can just walk around twirling a loaded, un-safetied pistol if you're really careful.
This list shows the last 10 events of 48. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.SwordOfTruth