forums.rs

Forums

Zamorak vs. Zamorakianism

Quick find code: 341-342-42-65892825

of 18
Rifleavenger
May Member 2022

Rifleavenger

Posts: 1,381 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Giras said :
Rifleavenger said :
Snip
If you go back to the actual book of Zamorak, you'll notice that Zamorak put out most of the fire he started. There was never really any real danger, so your examples are full of shit. What you're doing is comparing giving a vaccine to jamming rusty nails into a person's feet.
Hazeel said :
It's been a looong time...like, over a year, but I recall one of the JMods commenting on the village fire. If memory serves, they said there were some deaths within the fire, but they were from people "Zamorak considered weak".

*shrug* Life moves on. So, Zamorak kills several people and then writes off their existence worthless to justify doing so? All so he can make a point to Moia? Yeah, jamming rusty nails into someone's feet as a vaccine to tetanus seems like a good comparison actually. Zamorak's cure is worse than the "disease" he thinks he's removing.

Also, the way he set the fire, and "removed" most of it, was akin to a fireball spell in DnD. "Instantaneous" duration, but the effects remain and flammable materials were set alight (hence why the villagers had to work to put it out).

Even if no one died (and it seems word of Jmod says otherwise), you're still trying to defend that arbitrarily destroying property and making innocent people fear for their lives is somehow morally justified. You've provided no ethical backing to support that what Zamorak did was justified, but my other examples wouldn't be under his ideals, only saying you'd just get over it if it happened to you (really, if Hguoh burned down your house that wouldn't be wrong?).

The only thing full of shit here is people defending a philosophy (social darwinism) that was debunked decades ago as self-serving crock. Or would you prefer comparison to something more akin to Rand's celebration of selfishness?

21-Mar-2017 17:54:12 - Last edited on 21-Mar-2017 18:11:44 by Rifleavenger

Rifleavenger
May Member 2022

Rifleavenger

Posts: 1,381 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Oh, one last point. I disagree that there was never any danger, but even if that were true the villagers were not aware that was the case. It is wrong to disrupt their lives and put them in fear by faking a fire, just as it is wrong and a crime for me to send a spurious bomb threat to a school.

21-Mar-2017 18:16:46

Giras
Sep Member 2012

Giras

Posts: 2,399 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
So let's say Zamorak didn't come along and a real fire starts but isn't measured so that it's harmless in the long run. The whole village would be cinders instead of a few buildings and everyone would be dead instead of a few stragglers. Zamorak gave them a "vaccine" against a real disaster so they'd be prepared. With no consequences, or the illusion of consequences, people don't make preparations they don't think they'd need until it's too late.

If Saradomin just walked up to them and taught them like he claims should be done, those people would've shrugged and carried on with their routine. The only way they'd actually prepare for the disaster is if Saradomin made an "example," like he did with Garlandia... Zamorak basically did the same thing but didn't make them kneel before him and kiss his ass with endless praise and proclaiming the result as "in his glory!" I just love how you Saradominists brush Garlandia's mutilation off as "necessary!" Hypocrisy and double-standards are the cornerstone of Saradominism.

Unfortunately for your argument Zamorakianism isn't social darwinism. Societies as a WHOLE benefit from it just as individuals do. You're basically putting trust in an idea that's been proven to be a pie in the sky unrealistic pipe-dream that ALWAYS ends in failure and the loss of the entire population.
I'm no one's servant!

Good. Never let anyone think differently
.

21-Mar-2017 18:42:14 - Last edited on 21-Mar-2017 18:43:10 by Giras

Astraea L

Astraea L

Posts: 824 Gold Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Giras said :
So let's say Zamorak didn't come along and a real fire starts but isn't measured so that it's harmless in the long run. The whole village would be cinders instead of a few buildings and everyone would be dead instead of a few stragglers. Zamorak gave them a "vaccine" against a real disaster so they'd be prepared. With no consequences, or the illusion of consequences, people don't make preparations they don't think they'd need until it's too late.

If Saradomin just walked up to them and taught them like he claims should be done, those people would've shrugged and carried on with their routine. The only way they'd actually prepare for the disaster is if Saradomin made an "example," like he did with Garlandia... Zamorak basically did the same thing but didn't make them kneel before him and kiss his ass with endless praise and proclaiming the result as "in his glory!" I just love how you Saradominists brush Garlandia's mutilation off as "necessary!" Hypocrisy and double-standards are the cornerstone of Saradominism.

Unfortunately for your argument Zamorakianism isn't social darwinism. Societies as a WHOLE benefit from it just as individuals do. You're basically putting trust in an idea that's been proven to be a pie in the sky unrealistic pipe-dream that ALWAYS ends in failure and the loss of the entire population. A couple of flaws with this comparison:

1. Saradomin at least tried to warn the icyene of the impending threat. Zamorak didn't even tell them there was a problem at all before he burned down their village and killed several people.

2. We're given no indication that the villagers were in any danger of being wiped out at all. Who's to say they wouldn't have done just fine without Zamorak's "help?"

Also... Giras said :
Hypocrisy and double-standards are the cornerstone of Saradominism. The irony is so thick, you could
Skystone Jexel
, Supreme Warden of The Skystone Order and
Saradominist
Lorehound

The sword of the righteous and the shield of the defenseless.

21-Mar-2017 18:52:22 - Last edited on 21-Mar-2017 19:00:02 by Astraea L

Astraea L

Astraea L

Posts: 824 Gold Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Raleirosen said :
I'll have to echo Giras, too many assumptions for this to be very coherent. The real kicker is right here, though: Astraea L said :
...I believe there to be one fatal flaw with the philosophy that I haven’t seen anyone talk about yet: Zamorak is incompatible with his own philosophy. A 100% untrue statement. Zamorak being incompatible with the philosophy has no bearing on the validity of the philosophy itself. I must concede that you're right. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it's a fatal flaw with Zamorak himself rather than with his philosophy. I'll edit the thread to reflect this.
Skystone Jexel
, Supreme Warden of The Skystone Order and
Saradominist
Lorehound

The sword of the righteous and the shield of the defenseless.

21-Mar-2017 18:56:37 - Last edited on 21-Mar-2017 18:57:25 by Astraea L

Rifleavenger
May Member 2022

Rifleavenger

Posts: 1,381 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Giras said :
So let's say Zamorak didn't come along and a real fire starts but isn't measured so that it's harmless in the long run. The whole village would be cinders instead of a few buildings and everyone would be dead instead of a few stragglers. Zamorak gave them a "vaccine" against a real disaster so they'd be prepared. With no consequences people don't make preparations they don't think they'd need until it's too late. The harm he is seeking to prevent is hypothetical and imagined. The harm he caused is real. Original message details are unavailable.
If Saradomin just walked up to them and taught them like he claims should be done, those people would've shrugged and carried on with their routine. The only way they'd actually prepare for the disaster is if Saradomin made an "example," like he did with Garlandia. I just love how you Saradominists brush Garlandia's mutilation off as "necessary!" Hypocrisy and double-standards are the cornerstone of Saradominism. How do you know they wouldn't learn through words if you don't try?

Garlandia's mutilation was unnecessary and wrong. As was Nagarun. I have never argued otherwise. I've supported Saradomin (and not exclusively) because I believe in the vision of the world he wants to create, not the actions he's taken, and continuation of that support is subject to my current belief that I can pull his head out of his ass. Both Saradomin and my World Guardian will need to do penance for things they've done, but creating a peaceful world comes first.

Original message details are unavailable.
Unfortunately for your argument Zamorakianism isn't social darwinism. Societies as a WHOLE benefit from it. You're basically putting trust in an idea that's been proven to be a pie in the sky unrealistic pipe-dream that ALWAYS ends in failure. I was wrong on comparing it to SD, as that's literally Bandos' schtick. The comparison to Rand is accurate though. And I'd take pie in the sky over hell on Gielinor.

21-Mar-2017 19:11:33 - Last edited on 21-Mar-2017 19:12:24 by Rifleavenger

Hazeel

Hazeel

Posts: 6,735 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Rifleavenger said :
Even if no one died (and it seems word of Jmod says otherwise), you're still trying to defend that arbitrarily destroying property and making innocent people fear for their lives is somehow morally justified.

You could claim anything is morally justified. Morality does not work in absolutes. I could easily justify this by saying that people are better off dead than weak. Killing them off can claimed as an act of compassion and mercy.

...But let's be real, this isn't about morality. I don't expect weaklings to simply accept the natural order. They will pursue their own self interests like any rational thinking creature would. To do this, they find irrational creatures who would abandon their own self interests to protect them. These pitiful things are manipulated through emotion and misguided dogma.

I will also pursue my own self interests by eradicating weakness. And though self serving, my goals don't only benefit me. I'm well aware that having a powerful society will create more advancement and further my own power as well. I could easily claim this to be moral, but I'm not interested in laying claim to the moral highground, because morality is meaningless. Runescape doesn't need a hero...it needs a villain. An all encompassing force of evil that will remain ever-threatening and use chaos to make the peoples of Gielinor tolerate each other, grow strong together, and fight side by side against this evil. I am that villain.

21-Mar-2017 19:27:25 - Last edited on 21-Mar-2017 19:28:54 by Hazeel

Giras
Sep Member 2012

Giras

Posts: 2,399 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
So the opposition basically boils down to: it's better to let them go unprepared against an eventuality because breaking the status quo is scawwwwy.

Fires happen in any society with flammable buildings. It's going to happen. People don't listen to warnings without a perceivable threat, we see this every day in society!
I'm no one's servant!

Good. Never let anyone think differently
.

21-Mar-2017 19:37:12 - Last edited on 21-Mar-2017 19:38:37 by Giras

Rifleavenger
May Member 2022

Rifleavenger

Posts: 1,381 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Hazeel said :
Fine, ethical systems then. Of which I have rarely seen anyone seriously defend a system like Zamorakianism seriously outside of fictional settings and hypotheticals. Philosophical systems tied into capitalist ethos come closest, and even then any reasonable system there has exceptions made to things the "invisible hand" does not properly react to. Those also always preached "exaltation of merit" over "destroy the weak," which is what I thought Jagex was trying to spin 6th age Zamorakianism as (though I honestly find it more honest to be honest and admit the latter is a result of the former). Most of those also put a great deal of stock in property rights, which Zamorak seems to disregard in the main example brought up in this thread.

The majority of real world societies, for all their many flaws, seem to avoid systems like Zamorakianism. Moralistic stuff aside, the likely reason is the fear, or reality, that such a system would either implode or result in tyranny. And within Runescape itself the greatest and brightest Zamorakian contributions have come in mixed societies. Morytania is a nightmarish tyranny where sentient beings are food, the Wilderness is a failed state, and Khazard's lands aren't exactly prospering. Whether Zamorakianism or (imo) unfettered capitalism, systems of ethics that promote selfish behavior cannot build a lasting society that has net utility between all members.

That said, most of my fervor in the thread has been over my disbelief that Giras would try and spin setting people's houses on fire as not harming anyone. Even if you think it'd be a net positive long term (I don't) it wasn't harmless. The shallow caricatures that compose the philosophies of the Runescape factions aren't worth much real consideration.

I will say that Zamorak does get brownie points for being one of the most sincere characters in Runescape. Doesn't change my disagreement with his worldview though.

21-Mar-2017 20:02:01

Quick find code: 341-342-42-65892825 Back to Top