- 32,359
- 20,298
I agree with Ryu.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So quite a few things to unpack here. It may be tangentially relevant and impact how this thread resolves, but that doesn't mean it should be kept in this thread. I've been in CRTs where some huge issue has cropped up, and a different CRT was made for that issue to keep the issues separate. We also split off CRTs that come up during battles into their own threads for a similar reason.Ryukama said:You clearly don't understand that this is actually relevant to the topic. Whether or not we accept Medaka having souls is going to rely on how we handle these standards. Also as such this conversation is going to happen in this Medaka discussion regardless. I don't see how moving to a new thread for a while then coming back here makes any difference.
The only place I remember this ever being applied on the site is when they're small issues. If you stuff multiple 200+ post issues into the same thread it muddies up the discussions with people discussing different things, fills up the thread quicker, makes it harder to read, makes people less likely to look at it than they would if the topics were separate, etc.Ryukama said:Also why is it like a taboo to deal with multiple subjects or discussions in the same thread? If all subjects and discussions are relevant to each other they should be brought up. Separating each and every one of them into their own thread isn't an organized way of discussing ideas. If anything it's even less organized than handling it all in one thread.
We aren't favoring any viewpoint other than an objective oneThe real cal howard said:"Also the idea is 'most people believe in souls so we have to assume all fiction has souls' but then why are we favoring one interpretation over all others?"
So instead we favor the minority's interpretation over all others? That's a biased viewpoint.
"composite soul"
No. The simplest belief is that of your consciousness that exists separate from your body. That's all that's being assumed.
Oh, well if that is all then Medaka Box has already proven that conciousness is entirely in the brainThe real cal howard said:No. The simplest belief is that of your consciousness that exists separate from your body. That's all that's being assumed.
I believe that souls should be assumed in verses where the average person has a soul. And that this is broader than just souls, any thing being manipulated which is assumed to be held by the average person and gives no powers to the average person should be equalized between verses in fights.Agnaa said:Do you think that Monika shouldn't automatically be able to affect people?
What do you think about a character that can "rewrite the stories in people's heads" to have mind/memory manip? Should this automatically work on verses that don't outright describe people's minds as stories?
Given how all of our IRL profiles are weapons, don't see how this would be a problem, but if we made profiles for IRL people, that could be quite a problem.Wokistan said:At the very least, we really shouldn't assume them for IRL files. Fiction is one thing, but with reality we can be more strict, and demand proof for everything, and souls haven't really been objectively proven there.
If we made a profile on an IRL atheist, would they not have a soul then? Or an IRL Buddhist having a soul the same way Buddhism has souls? (Not a rhetorical question. Geniunely curious on your standards of this).The real cal howard said:Say we made a profile on Barack Obama (silly, but go with it). Barack is a Christian and therefore believes in souls. How dare you go out of your way to analyze him in a way that's completely opposite of his beliefs and assume he doesn't have a soul.
What about implications that they do not have one?AguilaR101 said:It's very simple, no actual explicit statements of them actually lacking a soul or the concept of one = They have a soul and get promptly soulhaxed by anyone with the ability.
If humanoids and plants in the soul manip user's verse have souls or are affected by soul manip, then yes. If they're not shown to, then no.GreyFang82 said:Ok, so I think it should be something that should be that you don't have one until you prove it. Setting it as a default doesn't make sense, and although very popular media do usually have something about an afterlife or souls doesn't mean all should just because of that.
Also do souls only default to humanoids or plants as well? Do all living things get it or only some?
This is important since some religions also believe that all living things have souls. Some even believe nonliving things still have souls.GreyFang82 said:Also do souls only default to humanoids or plants as well? Do all living things get it or only some?
Bumping this, do SCP-3043's and Monika's abilities just not work against anyone not from their own verses?Agnaa said:I believe that souls should be assumed in verses where the average person has a soul. And that this is broader than just souls, any thing being manipulated which is assumed to be held by the average person and gives no powers to the average person should be equalized between verses in fights.
Characters should be assumed to have souls when going against soul manip users. They should be assumed to have "stories in their heads" when going against SCP-3043, they should be assumed to have character files when going against Monika, and many, many more.
Topic aside, that actually sounds like a fun concept for a verse to have. What a being believes their soul is like governs what their soul is like. I may use that someday. Thanks for the ideaMatthew Schroeder said:What? So even in real life you're saying souls are variable based on belief?
?????Iapitus The Impaler said:For you people who think souls should be on by default, I raise you another question. What do you do with a verse that a soul is not spiritual?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a large portion of our fallacies and the like come from the Athenian legal system.Wokistan said:Using examples that we don't really see as great like ancient Greece doesn't really help your point. Burden of proof is a standard that is in theory pretty integral to modern Life, using ancient culture to discredit the idea is a weak argument.
I/O and some other verses have souls as a digital, not a spiritual concepts. Would they have the kind of souls you people say are on by default? Ripping the digital imprint out of somebody wouldn't really do anything lolAgnaa said:It depends how the verse treats it? If the verse just says "Souls aren't spiritual" and there's no implication or demonstration on how that affects soul manipulation, it does nothing. I don't think a verse saying "Death isn't spiritual" should change how death manipulation works without any further context.