Book 2 – Page 88

[0beron]

You claim some difference by using the terms "unlife" and "2nd life." ... Your special terms have no real meaning.

Actually they do have a difference, however I would say it was already covered in him saying Decays/Lives. Uncroaking is limited duration reanimation. Decryption is "popping again". That's a substantial difference in terminology.

Both are considered to be abominations by royalist sides (examples: Bea, Slately)

Yes, because ruler units and warlords have been shown in the past as the supreme experts on magic, so their opinion about the morality of it's use or misuse is VERY relevant to this debate.
PSH please, this is worse than your usual non sequiturs.

My main point is I feel that there are very plausible arguments that support either opinion. HOWEVER, I'd like to point out the at least with regard to Heirship, the whole argument itself has been rendered moot because someone has proven that croaking at all removes tribal affiliations, which Decryption did not recreate. So enough already.

[Nnelg]

Seriously guys, I think the problem here is a disagreement in the definition of the word "Precedent", more than anything else...

Spoiler: show

You claim some difference by using the terms "unlife" and "2nd life." It's far more accurate to say that both died, and that both are now not dead. Both had Motion removed from them, and both had Motion restored to them. Your special terms have no real meaning.

I agree with you here, they were both once dead, now not quite dead any longer: they are both un-dead.

You also claim another difference by using the labels "Made by Mortals" and "Made by Divinity." It's far more accurate to say that both are "made" by the acts of a Croakamancer. Unless you care to cite evidence that a Titan came down to Erf and created all those decrypted which we've seen Wanda create?

Actually, since one could define the Arkentools as direct extensions of the Titans' will, yeah one could say that's pretty much exactly what happened.

You claim that decrypted "Question Orders" and "Return to their father's [side]", when those were very specific exceptions to the unwavering loyalty we're seen from the decrypted. You cannot use a single fringe case, an abnormality, and apply it to the entire class of decrypted.

Ah, but the mere fact that such exception can exist makes Decryption different from Uncroaking.

Allow me to cite a case of a decrypted being "Mindlessly Loyal" even against very strong personal objections:

Ansom, upon being told that he would be left behind while the flying forces moved to Jetstone: I'll alert the tool. He will order you to allow me to lead the assault!
Wanda: No. You will not.
Ansom: No. ...I will not.

And this example can be applied to all decrypted except for your single, fringe case. You have in fact provided the exception which proves the rule.

Still not mindless. If Ansom was mindlessly loyal he wouldn't have questioned Wanda in the first place; what Wanda is exercising here is more of a form of mind control than anything else.

Wands is a MASTER croakamancer, she knows OODLES about her art, the decrypted STILL suprise her. Their existence was new information AND.

This is just a meaningless exclamation of yours in the context of this discussion. Wanda not knowing about decrypted has nothing to do with the similarity of decrypted to uncroaked.

Right. Just because the inventors of the Fission Bomb knew nothing of nuclear fusion, doesn't mean that Fission Bombs weren't a precedent for Fusion Bombs.

I'll grant you decays vs. does not decay, and not sentient vs. sentient. But I won't give you "retains beliefs" as we have the very strong example of Ansom, who was a complete royalist and called Wanda "witch" and other negative names, upon decrypting adoring Wanda completely and instantly being a convert to toolism.

Except for the fact that Ansom kept all parts of his personality that didn't conflict with his new world view. Decryption didn't overwrite his beliefs as much as twist them: before, he was a fundamentalist royalist; now, he is a fundamentalist toolist; but either way, he's still a fundamentalist.

Does Decryption have several parallels to Uncroaking? Yes.

Are Decryption and Uncroaking so similar that we should assume all details of the former to follow the latter until proven otherwise? No.

Can we still look at different parts of Uncroaking to make predictions about unknown properties of Decryption? Yes.

[Oberon]

Both are considered to be abominations by royalist sides (examples: Bea, Slately)

Yes, because ruler units and warlords have been shown in the past as the supreme experts on magic, so their opinion about the morality of it's use or misuse is VERY relevant to this debate.

It is very relevant, because their expertise or lack thereof in magic has nothing to do with the similarities between uncroaked and decrypted. You cannot counter the fact that their opinions about uncroaked and decrypted are exactly the same by attacking their knowledge of magic. Their opinions are the same, and their knowledge in any subject is irrelevant.

I already pointed this out regarding Wanda's lack of prior knowledge about decrypted having absolutely nothing to do with the similarities between uncroaked and decrypted, but apparently you were sleeping that day in class.

Or should I say, PSH please, this is worse than your usual non sequiturs?

[Salem]

Seriously guys, I think the problem here is a disagreement in the definition of the word "Precedent", more than anything else...

Spoiler: show

You claim some difference by using the terms "unlife" and "2nd life." It's far more accurate to say that both died, and that both are now not dead. Both had Motion removed from them, and both had Motion restored to them. Your special terms have no real meaning.

I agree with you here, they were both once dead, now not quite dead any longer: they are both un-dead.

You also claim another difference by using the labels "Made by Mortals" and "Made by Divinity." It's far more accurate to say that both are "made" by the acts of a Croakamancer. Unless you care to cite evidence that a Titan came down to Erf and created all those decrypted which we've seen Wanda create?

Actually, since one could define the Arkentools as direct extensions of the Titans' will, yeah one could say that's pretty much exactly what happened.

You claim that decrypted "Question Orders" and "Return to their father's [side]", when those were very specific exceptions to the unwavering loyalty we're seen from the decrypted. You cannot use a single fringe case, an abnormality, and apply it to the entire class of decrypted.

Ah, but the mere fact that such exception can exist makes Decryption different from Uncroaking.

Allow me to cite a case of a decrypted being "Mindlessly Loyal" even against very strong personal objections:

Ansom, upon being told that he would be left behind while the flying forces moved to Jetstone: I'll alert the tool. He will order you to allow me to lead the assault!
Wanda: No. You will not.
Ansom: No. ...I will not.

And this example can be applied to all decrypted except for your single, fringe case. You have in fact provided the exception which proves the rule.

Still not mindless. If Ansom was mindlessly loyal he wouldn't have questioned Wanda in the first place; what Wanda is exercising here is more of a form of mind control than anything else.

Wands is a MASTER croakamancer, she knows OODLES about her art, the decrypted STILL suprise her. Their existence was new information AND.

This is just a meaningless exclamation of yours in the context of this discussion. Wanda not knowing about decrypted has nothing to do with the similarity of decrypted to uncroaked.

Right. Just because the inventors of the Fission Bomb knew nothing of nuclear fusion, doesn't mean that Fission Bombs weren't a precedent for Fusion Bombs.

I'll grant you decays vs. does not decay, and not sentient vs. sentient. But I won't give you "retains beliefs" as we have the very strong example of Ansom, who was a complete royalist and called Wanda "witch" and other negative names, upon decrypting adoring Wanda completely and instantly being a convert to toolism.

Except for the fact that Ansom kept all parts of his personality that didn't conflict with his new world view. Decryption didn't overwrite his beliefs as much as twist them: before, he was a fundamentalist royalist; now, he is a fundamentalist toolist; but either way, he's still a fundamentalist.

Does Decryption have several parallels to Uncroaking? Yes.

Are Decryption and Uncroaking so similar that we should assume all details of the former to follow the latter until proven otherwise? No.

Can we still look at different parts of Uncroaking to make predictions about unknown properties of Decryption? Yes.

Actually I didn't respond to Oberon becuase he's acting kind of trolly. The problem is he is rejecting the ideas of others out of hand. He is acting like we CAN'T Assume they are different because they have some and/or many similarities. I was merely trying to say there are arguments FOR and against. I feel that they ARE similar as it takes a croakamancer to make them. Or at least as far as we know it does. But come on just ignoring the ideas of others is annoying. Or just dismissing things out of hand for no reason.
"I don't see the difference between un-life and a second life" "I don't see a difference between being raised as a zombie to be a mindless slave and poppin' back up like Jesus after a good nap."

[Nnelg]

Actually I didn't respond to Oberon becuase he's acting kind of trolly. The problem is he is rejecting the ideas of others out of hand. He is acting like we CAN'T Assume they are different because they have some and/or many similarities. I was merely trying to say there are arguments FOR and against. I feel that they ARE similar as it takes a croakamancer to make them. Or at least as far as we know it does. But come on just ignoring the ideas of others is annoying. Or just dismissing things out of hand for no reason.
"I don't see the difference between un-life and a second life" "I don't see a difference between being raised as a zombie to be a mindless slave and poppin' back up like Jesus after a good nap."

I know, he does do that a lot... But one shouldn't reject the conclusion just because the argument is wrong. And let me tell you from experience: Oberon will probably never get that point, no matter how well you refute his arguments.

And for the record, "popped again" is essentially just nomenclature. A walking, but perfectly embalmed and preserved corpse is still, at heart, just another form of walking corpse. (Although, I think in this specific case that both tags, "unlife" and "second life", would be applicable.)

[Sieggy]

Actually, Ansom put it correctly - he was 'Popped Again'. A riff on 'Born Again', derived from Titanic power. Physical, not spiritual. Popped again in service to the wielder of the Tool of the Titans. The comparison with the re-animation of a zombie and the resurrection of Jesus is dead on (metaphorically speaking).

[Oberon]

Actually I didn't respond to Oberon becuase he's acting kind of trolly. The problem is he is rejecting the ideas of others out of hand. He is acting like we CAN'T Assume they are different because they have some and/or many similarities.

That's kinda funny, since I've said very clearly that they aren't exactly the same. All I'm defending is the use of uncroaked as a precedent for the decrypted, and how this can be applied to the theories that Ansom is somehow still the heir of Jetstone (and similar "retained the state across death" fantasies). Or are you just trolling me by cherry picking some of my words and ignoring others while accusing me of something I didn't say or do?

Great use of quotation marks, by the way. You know, when you do that, you're actually supposed to be using the words someone said, and not just making up your own. That's called a straw man argument, and it's so very convenient to argue against, because you get to write both sides.

I'm a big poo-poo head.

When Salem admits that he is a big poo-poo head, it's all too clear to others that Salem is a big poo-poo head. He admitted it himself!

See how that works?

[Nnelg]

Oberon, you just don't get it... And perhaps you never will.

Let's just collectively drop this topic, and move on to something else. Perhaps, if I may be so bold, in the more recent comic's thread.

[Salem]

Oberon, you just don't get it... And perhaps you never will.

Let's just collectively drop this topic, and move on to something else. Perhaps, if I may be so bold, in the more recent comic's thread.

I appologize to you Nnelg for not just letting it drop. I must admit I'm a bit offended now.


Oberon, they were sarcasm marks, it's a common thing. You might notice people doing air qoutes when they are being sarcastic in person, makes them look like some horny abomination.

Number 2. I was only interjecting on the idea of Precedence really. But it is nice of you to call other people's ideas fantasies(Not that their my ideas, I just find the practice horrid). Because belittling people makes you a better person. But then again, taking the time to type Zeroberon evertime you qoute someone is kind of... why did I expect anything.

Finally, precedence ONLY matters if there is a reason to believe that the case is on point. I was never arguing there were NO similarities. I would not use Zombies to argue about how vampires work. Hey they both died, they both came back with half lives. Yes they have similarities, but we can't expect to assume that everything about Zombies applies to Vampires. Save that they both are really bad for pop culture. (Also see not scary anymore.)

[Oberon]

Oberon, they were sarcasm marks, it's a common thing.

No. When you put quotes around text and attribute it to someone else, that's not sarcasm. Feel free to use them on yourself only.

You might say about yourself: I don't "bathe regularly", Well.. maybe I don't.. "look the part".. uh.. I'm not.. "svelte".. I don't.. "look comfortable on camera".. I'm not.. "sobby". I don't.. "understand what's going on in the news." I'm not.. "likeable".. I don't.. "get along with people".. uh.. when I go to work, I don't.. "make eye contact".. I guess I.. don't.. "fit the mold". I.. don't.. "wear the latest clothes".. ir, even ones that don't.. "reek"! Uhh.. I don't.. "change my underwear".. uh.. I'm not "buff".. uh.. I don't have.. "firm breasts".. uh.. I don't.. "exercise". And when I do sweat, I don't.. "shower". I'm not.. "spic-and-span".. I don't.. "clean the area between my crotch and legs". But, for the time being, I guess the network.. "enforcers".. are opting for my reproach, until Joe Consumer tells thems he'd rather get his two cents from commentators who don't.. "make babies cry".. and don't.. "drink maple syrup straight from the bottle".. and don't .."leave old, dried-up deodorant cakes under their arm for weeks at a time".

But if I say it about you, even in what you're calling "sarcasm marks" (see, that there was a correct use of quotations! And now you know, kids!), it's just rude.

Oberon, you just don't get it... And perhaps you never will.

The funny thing is that you just don't "get it" (see? Another proper use of quotations!) that I could say the exact same thing about you. And it would be just as valid, which is to say, not at all.

[drachefly]

Both are considered to be abominations by royalist sides (examples: Bea, Slately)

Yes, because ruler units and warlords have been shown in the past as the supreme experts on magic, so their opinion about the morality of it's use or misuse is VERY relevant to this debate.

It is very relevant, because their expertise or lack thereof in magic has nothing to do with the similarities between uncroaked and decrypted. You cannot counter the fact that their opinions about uncroaked and decrypted are exactly the same by attacking their knowledge of magic. Their opinions are the same, and their knowledge in any subject is irrelevant.

When you speak of opinion of a thing, you are not talking about that thing. You are talking about the opinions, which are elsewhere You are talking about other people. If those people have access to additional information you do not, then you should pay attention. If they don't...

[0beron]

Oh don't even bother Drache, he's just being a stubborn confrontational idiot/troll, which I why I stopped responding. His dribble doesn't merit counterargument.

[Oberon]

When you speak of opinion of a thing, you are not talking about that thing. You are talking about the opinions, which are elsewhere You are talking about other people. If those people have access to additional information you do not, then you should pay attention. If they don't...

All I was pointing out was that the royal sides have the exact same opinion on uncroaked as they do the decrypted. Abonimations, horrors, unclean, etc. This is a similarity that can be easily seen between the uncroacked and the decrypted. And this is also a fact, which seems to be an inconvenient truth to some.

You have a point, in that their opinions aren't necessarily relevant as to the properties of a thing, since they can be wrong. But that doesn't deny the fact that their opinions and reactions are the same for uncroacked as they are for decrypted. We don't know why royal sides hate the uncroacked. Stanley sure doesn't have any issue with them. We also don't really know why the royals hate the decrypted. Stanley also doesn't have an issue with them. Stanley's ego and potential character development prevented Wanda from decrypting Jack, and he has some questions as to the loyalties of decrypted dwagons, but he isn't calling them abominations.

There is a clear difference in reaction between the royal sides as demonstrated by Bea and Slately and the non-royal sides as demonstrated by Stanley. And this difference is consistent regardless of whether the unit is uncroaked or decrypted.

Oh don't even bother Drache, he's just being a stubborn confrontational idiot/troll, which I why I stopped responding. His dribble doesn't merit counterargument.

Sure, ignore or decry the clear evidence because it doesn't fit your viewpoint. Facts, you ignore them. Go, you.

[Salem]

[quote="Oberon"]All I was pointing out was that the royal sides have the exact same opinion on uncroaked as they do the decrypted. Abonimations, horrors, unclean, etc. This is a similarity that can be easily seen between the uncroacked and the decrypted. And this is also a fact, which seems to be an inconvenient truth to some.

You have a point, in that their opinions aren't necessarily relevant as to the properties of a thing, since they can be wrong. But that doesn't deny the fact that their opinions and reactions are the same for uncroacked as they are for decrypted. We don't know why royal sides hate the uncroacked. Stanley sure doesn't have any issue with them. We also don't really know why the royals hate the decrypted. Stanley also doesn't have an issue with them. Stanley's ego and potential character development prevented Wanda from decrypting Jack, and he has some questions as to the loyalties of decrypted dwagons, but he isn't calling them abominations.

There is a clear difference in reaction between the royal sides as demonstrated by Bea and Slately and the non-royal sides as demonstrated by Stanley. And this difference is consistent regardless of whether the unit is uncroaked or decrypted.[/qoute]

It is immaterial to the issue. I'm sure there are people who find demons and the undead both abominations. I'm sure there are people who find zombies as abominable as animated skeletons, and equally as abominable as a lich, or a ghost, or a wailing wall holding the damned for all eternity. The point is yes they're all pretty abominable but that doesn't make them the same. And just because they all share the undead template doesn't mean you should think they're the same in every way. The only precedence they really hold is for arguments for coming back after death, the supernatural, scary boop. Not for power suites.

Oberon: "Sure, ignore or decry the clear evidence because it doesn't fit your viewpoint. Facts, you ignore them. Go, you."

You mean he shouldn't do exactly what you do? For pettiness sake you still type out Zeroberon. How small is that? You ignore people's additions out of hand if they're contrary to you and call them wrong, you don't offer any reasoning half the time. You're just a troll. And what the heck we love feeding you.
Also point in fact a lot of what you give are opinions.

[0beron]

For pettiness sake you still type out Zeroberon. How small is that?

Well for once I'll actually defend him, the Zeroberon thing can be helpful to other people who don't know about us. It doesn't bother me at all, I've even noticed some other users do it when we are both arguing in the same thread.

[Salem]

For pettiness sake you still type out Zeroberon. How small is that?

Well for once I'll actually defend him, the Zeroberon thing can be helpful to other people who don't know about us. It doesn't bother me at all, I've even noticed some other users do it when we are both arguing in the same thread.

I would agree, but seeing as how little people tend to qoute themselves, without making note of it, it seems less useful when he does it. But then again, I admit that I probably look for fault in people I am not all too fond of.

[bladestorm]

I quote myself quite a bit, considering the number of posts I have. Usually it's because I posted something, then continued to think about it and wanted to add more, or it just launches off into a different direction. Other times, there are so many nested quotes that I can't quote everyone else, so I just delete off everyone else except for my own quotes.

Or maybe there is a bladest0rm on here as well, and now I have to make a distinction. Or I could be kinda nuts and not only talk to myself, but answer myself, and answer my own posts.

[Salem]

I quote myself quite a bit, considering the number of posts I have. Usually it's because I posted something, then continued to think about it and wanted to add more, or it just launches off into a different direction. Other times, there are so many nested quotes that I can't quote everyone else, so I just delete off everyone else except for my own quotes.

Or maybe there is a bladest0rm on here as well, and now I have to make a distinction. Or I could be kinda nuts and not only talk to myself, but answer myself, and answer my own posts.

Well I did say without making note of it. Most of the time I imagine it going like:

As I have said before:

I don't bathe "Regularly"

[Nnelg]

I think the problem with a lot of this argument is that neither side is really wrong.


Yes' the Royals' views are corroborating evidence of the similarity of Uncroaked and Decrypted.

No; this by itself is not enough evidence to declare that the two are similar enough to extrapolate the properties of one from the other.


The thing is though, this whole argument has one giant scarecrow. And honestly, I have no idea who's fault it is.

[Salem]

I think the problem with a lot of this argument is that neither side is really wrong.


Yes' the Royals' views are corroborating evidence of the similarity of Uncroaked and Decrypted.

No; this by itself is not enough evidence to declare that the two are similar enough to extrapolate the properties of one from the other.


The thing is though, this whole argument has one giant scarecrow. And honestly, I have no idea who's fault it is.

Our parents?