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 :

But he didn't force them to live or die, he put out most of the fires himself and left just enough to teach them how to put out fires themselves.
Also the main point wasn't to just teach them about fire, it also got them out of their rut. They now have leaders and became a much stronger society as a whole. Let's do this right this time:

Zamorak sees people living 'stagnant' lives. He believes that is bad for them and wants to change it. He also wants to teach his ways to Moia, who is with him.

Zamorak does not ask for the consent of the village, nor warn them about the fire.

Zamorak produces a swath of fire. Most dissipates quickly, but a significant amount of the village is set ablaze. The remaining fire is dangerous to life and property if the villagers do not react quickly and properly.

Some property was destroyed, Jmods confirm some villagers died, and Zamorak had no way of being certain they would be able to put out the fire. So the fire was a real danger. Even if it wasn't, it would have seemed real to the villagers.

Had Zamorak not produced this fire, the villagers would not have to react to it.

The creation of a threat that endangers the villagers, without their consent, and would not exist in that instance had Zamorak not created it, in order to produce a result that aligns with Zamorak's worldview, is a use of force.

Zamorak never appeared before the villagers, never made demands, they may not even know he exists , but it was still a use of force. This is not to say that the use of force discredits him or his philosophy. Saradomin, Armadyl, Zaros, and the World Guardian have all used force as a tool to change the world in their favor, and I have supported or been them.

21-Mar-2017 23:48:54 - Last edited on 21-Mar-2017 23:51:24 by Rifleavenger

Giras
Sep Member 2012

Giras

Posts: 2,399 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Cthris said :
Cthris said :
Giras said :
They now have leaders and became a much stronger society as a whole.
Could you define what you mean by stronger? and how having leaders relates to strength?
Well having properly defined leaders means in the event of a crisis they will spend less time in confusion and have people to direct the most efficient form of management. Their society is stronger now because they will be prepared for future calamities and with their rut now broken they can now advance as a society with new inventions and better qualities of life. Moia literally said that nothing changed except for the age of the workers.
I'm no one's servant!

Good. Never let anyone think differently
.

22-Mar-2017 00:01:38

Giras
Sep Member 2012

Giras

Posts: 2,399 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Raleirosen said :
Rifleavenger said :
Sure, I get this. It's exactly why I find his ideology unacceptable. Even if the villagers had never seen fire before and had to be taught its dangers, forcing them to sink or swim when lives are on the line is cruel. But it does work, which gives the ideology a lot of credibility. Rifleavenger said :
And that gets back to the original point I was trying to make before getting lost yelling semantics (and bending/breaking forum rules about RW examples, my bad) at Giras: this is a time that Zamorak forced another person or group to live how he believes they should, or suffer the consequences (burning alive should they fail to put out the fire). Ah, I forgot what this thread was even about for a few pages. You're perfectly correct, Giras' apologetics regarding that point were ridiculous.
I was just being a dick and trying to make him blow his lid.
I'm no one's servant!

Good. Never let anyone think differently
.

22-Mar-2017 00:09:10

Cthris
Dec Member 2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Giras said :
Their society is stronger now because they will be prepared for future calamities and with their rut now broken they can now advance as a society with new inventions and better qualities of life. Moia literally said that nothing changed except for the age of the workers.

A) So a society is strong because it is prepared to survive in the future?

B) Isn't the society less or just as equally prepared now because now it's individuals are no longer able to act independently due to their reliance on their leader for leadership and the leaders lack of dependency because they now require followers in order to lead. Not to mention this opens up doors that were previously non existent in terms of corruption.

C) How can society advance if one can infinitely improve (make the society to be more prepared for future events) societies and advancement is to move on to the next step? Step two is no closer to infinity than step one*. Would it not follow that any improvement to a society is actually a lateral movement rather than a forward one.

*There are still an infinite amount of numbers between step two and absolute infinity as there is between step one and absolute infinity. Thus there is the same amount of steps between the two ranges.

D) Perhaps I should have asked for your definition of society as well.

E) Is individual strength better than societal strength?

22-Mar-2017 00:17:41 - Last edited on 22-Mar-2017 00:21:56 by Cthris

Giras
Sep Member 2012

Giras

Posts: 2,399 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
In the case of leaders, it would depend on how the leader came into power. Did he or she come into power because they were the best at planning? Or was he merely descended from an original hero and did nothing himself? The most fit to lead would obviously be the best choice but in the form of an election we could have someone completely unqualified because they were merely popular.
In this case however, the leaders sprang up among them because they had a natural inclination to lead that allowed them to unify the attempts to douse the fire and treat the injured. In the case of the village the leaders made them stronger.
I'm no one's servant!

Good. Never let anyone think differently
.

22-Mar-2017 00:31:58

Cthris
Dec Member 2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Giras said :
In this case however, the leaders sprang up among them because they had a natural inclination to lead that allowed them to unify the attempts to douse the fire and treat the injured. In the case of the village the leaders made them stronger.

However, it must be clear to you as well that leaders that excel in one area do not always excel in other areas, so perhaps the over-reliance on leaders has doomed the poor society.

How can we be sure that the leaders that were so useful in this instance will without question prepare the society for the next instance?

Furthermore, what exactly did Zamorak do? The leaders were already in the society, they weren't planted by Zamorak. Wouldn't the leaders natural inclination to lead cause them to lead given any calamity? Why would Zamorak's actions have made them stronger unless your definition of strength is not being prepared but of level of unification. Is this what you are trying to say?

22-Mar-2017 00:44:09 - Last edited on 22-Mar-2017 00:45:33 by Cthris

Giras
Sep Member 2012

Giras

Posts: 2,399 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Actually I don't think they had leaders at all before the incident, Zamorak made them stronger because they've broken out of their rut. Remember, nothing changed for them except age. By forcing them to make preparations for future fires they've broken their rut and opened up the way for new inventions and improved qualities of life through those advancements.
I'm no one's servant!

Good. Never let anyone think differently
.

22-Mar-2017 00:52:40

Rifleavenger
May Member 2022

Rifleavenger

Posts: 1,381 Mithril Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Giras said :
I was just being a dick and trying to make him blow his lid. So you had no intention of debating in good faith? That's very disappointing. I don't entirely believe you were "trolling all along" though, since you argued the same point versus Hguoh, I merely picked up on a point he made.

Original message details are unavailable.
In this case however, the leaders sprang up among them because they had a natural inclination to lead that allowed them to unify the attempts to douse the fire and treat the injured. Were the leaders and healers truly created by Zamorak's actions? The leaders I could potentially see ("sprang up" is suggestive of something new), but how could someone be an effective healer without some prior practice?

Are those same leaders qualified to lead in what comes next for the village? If not, is it truly a long term benefit or merely one that served the immediate crisis?

Since Zamorak just left, wouldn't the village find new order as the source of chaos leaves instead of adopting the philosophy of chaos?

If the positive outcome is that a stronger, but ordered, society formed, couldn't continued disruption negate that benefit? If so, wouldn't Zamorakianism seem best when applied in moderation, or as part of a philosophically mixed society (ex. old Wizard's Tower)?

Also, where/what is the line about worker age changing? It doesn't seem to be in the book, did Moia bring this up again later? From the original source the most Moia can attest to beyond the immediate response to the fire is a "stronger foundation" being built, which is rather vague. I see no clear indication Zammy and she even stayed long enough to actually see the long term results of their actions.

22-Mar-2017 01:10:33

Cthris
Dec Member 2023

Cthris

Posts: 5,206 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Giras said :
Actually I don't think they had leaders at all before the incident, Zamorak made them stronger because they've broken out of their rut. Remember, nothing changed for them except age. By forcing them to make preparations for future fires they've broken their rut and opened up the way for new inventions and improved qualities of life through those advancements.

Sorry I should have been more clear, the individuals who would become leaders existed inside the society already did they not? Regardless, it appears you have changed your definition of strength so it matters little now. Do you now wish to define strength as being dynamic?

Anyways, again with the word advancement. Can you please answer my question about the advancement paradox if you wish to continue to use it.

22-Mar-2017 01:25:49

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