sᴇᴠᴇɴ. [ text; ??? ]

[secondcomingof]

 [ Much unlike Casval's previous posts on the network, this one is comparatively short. It reads as follows: ]

What does it mean, to be inhuman? If someone were to accept such a burden upon themselves, would you consider them a monster? To be no one, rather than a part of that so-called "everyone"... is it something we should spurn, or something we should support, in the name of the greater good? And just what is the greater good, anyway? What is your concept of society's ideal, and the world as a whole? What separates the inhuman from the human, and why do we separate them in the first place?

...ah, sorry. I suppose I got a bit carried away there.

Well, at any rate, be as frank as you'd prefer. I look forward to your answers.

Comments

photo; attachment

[masterofbling]

Exact look I'm giving you right now.

text; phone

[mightymegatron]

I told you so.

facebook;;

[masterofbling]

Big Dick likes this.

text;

[mightymegatron]

In answer to your question: the inhuman is entirely determined by society at large and by cultural context. Consider that while we consider cannibalism inhuman, there were societies that considered it quite normal. Consider also the paradox of war - in normal society, it is considered barbaric to simply kill someone for an offense, but war? War is nothing but mass killing and inhumanity to man for the sake of politics.

It's all relative.

audio

[unfearing]

[ Elizabeth opts to vocalize her response because, well... That is such an intensely personal thing, it would seem wrong to respond to it with something as difficult to read tone out of as text.

So she clears her throat a little and begins to speak, voice warm and contemplative. ]

I suppose for that we would have to first define what it means to be human. I'm no expert on the matter, but at least in my own experience... isn't that alone still debated at length?

When we, and by that I mean society at large, speak of someone being 'inhuman,' we largely do still mean people who are biologically human, who were born with exactly as many fingers and toes as the rest of us. People who were children once, who lived and grew within the constructs of our society. But then they do something terrible, something that can never be taken back. And at that point, we call them inhuman. We call them monsters.

In truth they are neither. They, too, are people. We ostracize them and name them as 'other' purely out of our own discomfort. It has little to do with them and everything to do with our own insecurities. We do not want to imagine that the things they did are within the spectrum of human potential. We strip them of their humanity because we do not wish to allow them to define our humanities.

I do not feel it is right to write off anyone. Someone who has done something unforgivable is not the same as irredeemable, after all.

To me, there is no other. There is only the limitless possibilities of humankind.

We're all in this together, for better or for worse.

[text]

[abidan]

Have you been drinking again?

[secondcomingof]

No.

[ Yep. But only slightly, man, come on. He's not drunk all the time. ]

text

[11ady]

So you're asking if it's acceptable to take on the mantle of a villain for the sake of propelling the story forward? Is that it? And you wonder if one might be heralded for that? Misunderstood and martyred? Perhaps this might be of interest.

At 5:29:45 (Mountain War Time) on July 16, 1945, in a white blaze that stretched from the basin of the Jemez Mountains in northern New Mexico to the still-dark skies, "The Gadget" ushered in the Atomic Age. Upon witnessing the explosion, its creators had mixed reactions. Isidor Rabi felt that the equilibrium in nature had been upset as if humankind had become a threat to the world it inhabited. Robert Oppenheimer, though ecstatic about the success of the project, quoted a remembered fragment from the Bhagavad Gita. "I am become Death," he said, "the destroyer of worlds." Ken Bainbridge, the test director, told Oppenheimer, "Now we're all sons of bitches."

A cautionary tale for whatever it may be that you intend to undertake. They changed history but they also took countless lives through what they developed. Was it necessary? Was it worth it? Whenever someone dies, the potential they carry within them also perishes. Millions of futures that will never be. That is the price paid whenever the inhuman shows its ugly head, claiming progress as justification for the heinous.

[secondcomingof]

[ unimpressed.jpg ]

I see you know how to use Wikipedia. And SparkNotes.

Good for you.

audio;

[angelskills]

[ Ah... what to say. She feels compelled to comment despite not being sure how to articulate her feelings. She wasn't the smartest person (though she studied hard in school) nor was she the most eloquent or composed. She closes her eyes for a moment and makes a soft hmm noise, folding her hands together, interlocking her fingers, as though she's about to pray. Finding words can be difficult, but when she speaks from her heart, she finds it a little easier to string them together.

One line stands out from the others to her: If someone were to accept such a burden upon themselves, would you consider them a monster? Inhuman... that sounds like a heavy burden to bear. No matter what the "greater good" may be.

She knows she's more spiritual and emotional than technical, but... hopefully she can help in some way. ]

Inhuman... I think that sounds very... lonely. What makes us human are our beliefs and our hearts, our senses, and the things we love. Our feelings. So I guess that inhuman... maybe that would be emptiness. If someone were to give up everything that makes them who they are for the sake of others - the greater good, I don't think I could ever call such a person a monster.

To accept that, I would think they were a very courageous person. Someone who can walk through the dark even when they're afraid.

As for what the greater good is, I'm sorry, I don't know. I think that might be something that lies in the hearts of individuals. We all have our own truths inside of us. We just have to find them.

[ audio; ??? ]

[secondcomingof]

[ Hm... he hadn't heard from this one before. A girl? Young, too, from the sounds of it, but she also sounds earnest. Faithful. True. And while he's not terribly inclined at the moment towards any of those things, Casval is also a firm believer in the concept of equivalent exchange—and so he responds in turn, verbally, with a deep, determined sort of tone. ]

I suppose you'd have to define what loneliness entailed, too. [ Casval knows what it is. He sees it in the mirror everyday, and spies it lurking around every empty corner. ] So you're more the sentimentalist? That's a fair view, but I struggle to come to terms with it, as a soldier. It's hard to embrace it when you've shut it out for so long.

But you're also very forgiving, and that's a good quality to have. [ You can hear the smile in his voice. ] Never lose it, if you can. Hold onto it, even in this turbulent world of ours.

text; iPhone

[earnedmystripes]

[Impersonal as it is for such a question, Kotetsu decides to go for text as well. He's less likely to stumble over his words that way, at least.]

Why?

Does it matter?

I guess it sorta depends on how literal you're being, since we've got a talking horse among us now.

[That's not the point, and Kotetsu knows it, of course. But it was sort of where his mind derailed to at first while trying to think of an actual answer.]

I think...to be inhuman is to have never known love. That's how we survive and make our way in the world: by pulling together, helping each other up when we're down.

Guns and knives and knowing how to fight, none of it means anything on its own. We had weapons when we fought the werewolves. But that's not why we survived. We made it because we looked out for each other, tried to defend each other because we wanted to make sure we all made it out alive. And others--others who couldn't fight showed concern for us, tried to help us prepare or ease our minds afterward. That's what being human is, right there.

If someone had never felt that kind of emotion for another living creature, that's what I'd call inhuman.

...So I don't think it's possible to become that, to 'choose' to accept it. I don't think it's possible to destroy your own heart like that.

I don't see any good that could come of it if you could.

[secondcomingof]

[ Horses... right. Definitely going to look into that later. For now— ]

I don't necessarily think that those who are inhuman never knew love. Haven't you ever heard of the concept of "loved and lost"? I'm sure you understand what I'm referring to. People can lose pieces of themselves over time; the world is cruel that way, vindictive and mean.

But I agree. We were lucky to pull through, as we did, even if everything didn't go as planned. Because we were emotional, and acted to protect those around us, we survived.

Though a heart can also be a great burden, can't it? What if you had to choose between sacrificing someone you loved, and sacrificing the world? What would you do then? Would you save that person, and damn the world... or would you destroy that piece of yourself, in the name of the "greater good"?

text

[testsonseashells]

Humans defined as bipedal apes with little fur and complex brains, among other qualities. Nonhumans not capable of producing fertile offspring with humans.

Separated for sake of categorization.

[secondcomingof]

[ damn son there aren't enough facepalms in the world for this

seriously ]

We are speaking in strictly a moral sense, not biological.

Points for trying, though.

Picture;

[deathcough]

[secondcomingof]

Well, at least it wasn't a cat this time.

[ Thank god for that. ]

I know you have something else to say about this, Souji. We've already had this discussion.

[Text]

[chalicejoker]

[This is striking way too close to home for Hajime. He's glad it's text, because text makes it way easier to hide his intense uncertainty about this topic.]

Monsters destroy things. I guess inhuman isn't bad as long as no one's being hurt.

[He is actually pretty certain he's turning into something inhuman, and it freaks him out more than he'd care to admit.]

[secondcomingof]

[ Same with Casval, man. Except with less freaky blood and more freaky mind powers. ]

But if it's a monster, shouldn't you destroy it first? What if it hurts someone eventually? Should you act preemptively, or leave it be?

[Text]

[shiromadoushi]

There's no such thing as the greater good. It's just a lie people claim to be in favor of when they want to shove anything unpleasant down your throat.

[secondcomingof]

Speaking from experience?

[kingside]

I can't speak to your question of what it means to be inhuman, but there's a clear answer to what "the greater good" is in utilitarianism.

Society's ideal changes from day to day, as does the world. There is no fixed answer.

[secondcomingof]

I didn't ask for a fixed answer, or the "correct" one.

I asked for yours.

text

[redelivers]

Human and inhuman are just words. They're crap people tell themselves to feel better about themselves. Or punish themselves. Or whatever crap they're feeding themselves today.

People are people. Sometimes we're good to each other. Sometimes we're totally fucked up.

That's just life.

The 'greater good' is no different. Some of the worst people in history have lived and died doing what they thought was for the greater good. It's never really about being good for the world. It boils down to having the constitution to do whatever it takes to protect what you believe in and the people you care about.

The way I see it, there's just the strong and the weak.

Either you've got the dedication and fortitude to fight for what you believe in, or you're born as nothing and you die as nothing.

[secondcomingof]

I like the cut of your jib.

[ See how hip and rad Casval is? Totally hip and rad, guys. ]

...is what I'd say personally, but I'm obligated to ask why you feel that way. Forming an opinion like that, I get the impression there's something substantial driving you. What is it?

[Text, computer]

[professorwolf]

What brought all that on?

[Lyall doesn't have much interest in bandying theories of the metaphysical or moral with someone like Casval, who he barely knows and hasn't seen the good side of yet, not without hearing something of Casval's idea of an answer first. But he is curious if something in particular happened-- or if the man's just drunk, or something.]

[secondcomingof]

[ I AM NOT DRUNK ALL THE TIME I am just miserable and dependent and pathetic there is a difference!!!!! Maybe. Possibly.

Should probably drink some more, just to make sure. ]

Curiosity.

[ That's a big fat nope but like hell is he admitting the actual reason. Sorry, Lyall. ]

text|phone

[exloserspromise]

Generally speaking, I'd say the world has enough colossal assholes without anybody deciding to be one deliberately. But it's a free country, so as long as you're not murdering people or anything it's none of my business.

[secondcomingof]

And if someone were to start?

[ Yeah, forcing you to pick a side and have an opinion beyond sketchy neutral territory. Deal with it. ]

[eyesofstrength]

Literally it means to not be human. Human tends to refer to our level of intelligence and the ability to think for ourselves rather than to act based on instinct alone or a set of programmed commands.

Or do you mean it in more metaphoric terms because of your recent actions?

[secondcomingof]

Metaphoric.

[dorkytracksuit]

I think you're really overthinking this.

audio; cell phone

[withregret]

How philosophical. Are you troubled, Casval Mass?

[ Can you feel it? The burn, as I do? Or do you feel only ice? ]

[ text; ??? ]

[secondcomingof]

[ She won't get him out in the open that easily.

Yet. ]

You're troubled enough to answer, it seems.

[ Ice can burn just as much as flame. ]

[Text]

[scramasax]

[The "inhuman" matter is still a vague one to him to begin with - so he starts with the second question half because he figures that's where any answer he could give to the first would stem from and half because he feels vaguely self-righteously affronted by the other responses that have come in.]

This is what I think:
I believe that there is a greater good, and that it should be obvious that the trouble is knowing the way to it.
Caring to know the way is one of the important parts of being "human." The greater good is a good for everyone. Even only caring for others shows care for the greater good.
A person is inhuman if they don't, and a person may be called inhuman if their way seems misguided or their way of expressing care isn't conventional.
Even so, I don't think it's true that the ends justify the means and I cannot picture a person who had the greater good in mind not feeling that they were doing harm in its name, even in the short run.

- Anthony J.