savetheearth | sᴇᴠᴇɴ. [ text; ??? ]

sᴇᴠᴇɴ. [ text; ??? ]

[ 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.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Exact look I'm giving you right now.

I told you so.

Big Dick likes this.

[ 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.

Have you been drinking again?

Yes, thank you, Richard.

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.

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.

You should drop by some time. I do believe we have a mutual friend.

We might, at that. Where are you these days, anyway?

Penthouse suite at The Stratus. Care to visit?

Edited 2013-05-01 18:37 (UTC)

May as well. Name the time.

10pm. I know better than to buy you dinner.

[ 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.

[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.

Edited (whoops html) 2013-05-01 22:17 (UTC)

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.

Edited 2013-05-01 23:09 (UTC)

[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.]

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.

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.

Edited 2013-05-01 23:45 (UTC)

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.

Edited 2013-05-02 00:10 (UTC)

Did you now.

[ Moving right along to the part with actual substance here... ]

That's an interesting [ read: brutal and therefore inherently appealing ] way of looking at it. So you're a relativist, then? Or is it simply in this particular case?

No.

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

[ unimpressed.jpg ]

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

Good for you.

[eyeroll]

Miss the point if it pleases you.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 7

sᴇᴠᴇɴ. [ text; ??? ]

photo; attachment

text; phone

facebook;;

audio

[text]

text;

text

text;

text;

text;

text; private

text; private

Re: text; private

audio;

text; iPhone

text

Picture;

[Text]

[Text]

no subject

text

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject