035. [ANON TEXT]

[explosivecombat]

[Well, good evening, network - it seems Seth's device is active again, though at the very least he's not inviting everyone to war like he's throwing the world's most unasked-for party this time around.]

You know, one of the things I've always found most fascinating about human morality is the idea that we're higher beings due to our natural inclination to put others before ourselves. It's generally accepted in society that we should be willing to sacrifice ourselves before harming another; I've always found adhering to that sort of notion to both vaguely admirable and sickeningly saccharine. If you must kill one to save another, that's still a life that's lost; why shouldn't the reward go to the one who's willing to fight for it, rather than the one who did nothing to earn it but sit there in pious devotion to doing nothing wrong?

We claim superiority for suppressing our instincts to survive; if anything, I think that would put us lower than dogs, not above them. All this intelligence and no will to live; it's pitiful.

But then, I suppose my lack of understanding of these things is why I can't be considered one of you.

For the time being, however, say I were to humor you in discussion for a while. Do you think your will to fight to ensure your survival actually needs to be tested? Since I suspect the answer will overwhelmingly be "No," I have another pre-emptive question for the heroic types.

Is there anything outside of arrogance and so-called moral superiority that makes you say so?

[...O...kay that's really not any better but apparently, it's just that kind of night.

You know, full of misanthropy.

Because some nights are like that.]

Comments

text;

[ossifragant]

I'm not the best person to talk about things like humanity. I've watched humans for a long time form this sort of pattern of either accepting things for what they are or violently rebelling. Complacency seems to be the easiest thing for most people. Ignoring the things that bother them, because they're either smart enough to be selfish or stupid enough tho think that bad things can't happen to them.

If someone wants to test my will to continue surviving, they're welcome to. I really don't care. I can't do as much here as I could back in my own world but that really doesn't matter because I'll still fight them if it comes to that.

Then again, I'm not one of the heroic types you're addressing.

I'm no more special than the rest of the masses that get sent to the slaughter in the end. The only difference between me and them is I have the skills to back up my talk. That, and I don't suppress my instincts.

anon text forever

[explosivecombat]

Acknowledging that you're no more special than the rest actually sets you ahead of them, from what I've seen. Even those who are smart enough to be selfish are stupid enough to think that'll save them.

I won't claim to be better than anyone else. I'm skilled and I'm useful, but I'm not particularly special. What sets me apart is the intelligence to admit that, and the willingness to put my very existence on the line in everything I do - because I don't see the point in doing otherwise, to put it bluntly.

[berkthorn]

I think you have living confused with surviving.

Where I'm from, there were times when it was kill or be killed, but we learned that it didn't have to be that way. We adapted, and things are easier now. People are happier. Even if war can't be avoided, you can fight and still try to avoid killing anyone. They deserve to live just as much as you do.

[anon text forever]

[explosivecombat]

So by your logic, people "deserve to live" on merit of existing at all. Is that it?

[text]

[beholdmydemons]

[Every fucking time. Hello, there.]

Needs is a strong word, but when humans get by without being tested their humanity seeps out of them. You don't need me to tell you that, though.

[anon text forever]

[explosivecombat]

How would you define "humanity," in the context you just used it in? Oblige me for a moment.

[text]

[me_first]

what an interesting question! i would say that it does, but cloudbank didn't have very many opportunities for that. very few people ever left.

[anon text forever]

[explosivecombat]

And if it did, would you take those particular opportunities?

anon text;

[adnihilum]

I suppose this notion is a price to pay for stabilizing larger colonies of humans.

Practical in densely populated situations, but not all the time.

anon text forever

[explosivecombat]

[...CHILD DID YOU JUST LITERALLY SUGGEST THE PLOT OF SOYLENT GREEN AS A LEGITIMATE OPTION]

Well, that's certainly the sort of thing I wouldn't suggest ever saying to anyone's face, but I suppose that's a fair enough point.

[dead philosophers forever]

[doitrockapella]

Human societies that subscribe to the notion of a fundamental right to life would operate on the rationale that a person should be willing to die before taking the option of killing someone else because no one has the inherent right to prioritize their own life as more valuable than another innocent person's.

That said, I know this bait isn't for me and as such I'd rather not take it any further than I have already; now that I've already been drawn out, is everything all right, or is it just that kind of night?

[explosivecombat]

...I honestly don't see why one wouldn't prioritize their own life above that of another person, but I'll let it lie for now.

Everything is fine and no one is going to die tonight, if that's what you're asking. Restlessness, if nothing else.

[text]

[ajustcaws]

[...wow, it's been a while since Cynthia has been ignited into righteous heroine anger.

...of course, she's even more frustrated because she can't actually think of a good answer to this question that isn't moral superiority and "that's just what heroes do."

...so of course she's going to answer anyway.]

this question is stupid!!! what if i just WANT to, huh???????

[anonymous text forever]

[explosivecombat]

[OH BOY

this isn't even shooting fish in a barrel, this is hitting a goldfish in a dixie cup with one of cobra commander's warheads, holy shit this almost seems mean - ]

I don't doubt you do. I'm asking why you want to.

No one acts without a reason, after all.

text;

[angerpoints]

[... is this it

IS THIS THE MOUNTAIN HE'S GOING TO DIE ON? A text message from an anonymous person clearly looking to get a rise out of people like him?

You know what, yeah, it is, because reading it made his blood pressure shoot up through the damn stratosphere, and now he's all fired up and ready to argue. Dammit, anonymous, he would've preferred the invitation to war. At least then he'd have the option of expressing his opinion of your opinion by trying to track you down so he can rearrange your teeth. That would've been way more satisfying than having to actually use his words.]

Look, asshole, I'm not exactly above punching somebody so they won't gut me with a shiv or whatever, but the idea that everyone needs to earn the right to survive is bullshit. If a person has to rely on someone else to fight for them, it's because they either can't do the fighting themselves for some reason or because they don't have the stones, and as fucking annoying as spinelessness is, it doesn't make someone less deserving of life. Neither does helplessness. The only thing that determines the worth of somebody's life is how they treat other people.

You wanna talk about arrogance and a screwed up sense of superiority? Let's start with the assumption that people don't deserve to live if you think they aren't busting their asses hard enough for it.

anonymous text forever

[explosivecombat]

[...ahahaha, well then.

Let's do this, shall we?]

So you think people deserve life simply by merit of existing and not being a terrible person. Is that more or less what you're telling me?

text forever

[islandshore]

If there's nothing to test us, how are we supposed to get stronger? Yeah, you could argue I'm one of those "heroic types," but I'd have to be crazy to think I'm invincible. A strong will can go a long way, but you need more than that if you're gonna survive.

As for sacrifice, I'd say it hinges on wanting to protect the people who matter. Still, why pick between one life or the other? I'd argue there's always a third option.

anonymous text forever

[explosivecombat]

That last point interests me simply because it implies that you think there are others that "matter" more than you do. Which is a rather modest standpoint, at least, but it strikes me as ultimately self-defeating.

[text]

[lieutenantantichrist]

[Blake is really, really good at philosophical questions.]

You want to fight?

[anonymous text forever]

[explosivecombat]

Almost always. But that has very little bearing on the question.

[TEXT]

[glaciates]

[You know, he was having a nice day too until you showed up. Thanks, Seth.]

There's no way to "test" someone's will to fight. Either they survive or they don't. You can't test it, unless you're calling a life or death situation a test, and I'm not even going to bother trying to explain what's wrong with that.

It's not always possible to avoid situations like that, where ultimately you'll find out whether or not your "will to survive" is strong enough. You're overlooking something important though - some people will put their own survival above everything else, but there are other people who will look at a situation, see that they can save a life, and will do that instead of preserving themselves.

I think that's pretty impressive, if nothing else.

The way you've worded things implies that there's only people who fight for survival or people who die. There's a third class of people out there who will put others' safety before their own. It can be taken to extents where it's stupid and self-sacrificing, but that doesn't mean that everyone who would react that way is an idiot for attempting it.

So what is it you're really looking for? You didn't post this to the network just to hear everyone tell you how wrong you are for a variety of reasons, did you?

[anonymous text forever]

[explosivecombat]

[Yes, yes. You came out to have a good time and you're honestly feeling so attacked right now.]

The way I've worded things doesn't disallow for that third class of people - the reason for their death really doesn't matter, in the end. You're no less dead if you die in the name of trying to assert some sort of moral superiority. Maybe you'll get a nicer funeral, but it's a bit hard to appreciate that from six feet underground.

As for why I posted it, I don't know that that's any of your business. I like seeing people's reactions - I think that's enough for you.

[AUDIO - LOCKED]

[sadisticwarfare]

[Well, well, look who it is. Archer doesn't even bother responding to Seth's 'Gear, instead he directs the reply to Kimblee's, locking it down immediately before he begins speaking.]

I'm sure you're having a good time provoking the heroes, but I have to wonder if there's something else behind your message to the network. Are you getting bored, Kimblee?

[TEXT - LOCKED]

[explosivecombat]

[Oh. Well, hello there -

...are you seriously going to make him talk at this device

you know he doesn't like to talk at the

device

it feels stupid and Carmen accidentally convinced him it'll give him a brain tumor besides so let's just

...awkward skypeing is go, he's typing at you.]

I'm not trying to pose any criticism of our activities lately, if that's what you're getting at. Though it would be entirely fair to say that I'm getting a bit restless.

Video

[silentscales]

Snakes are better...

Says Elizabeth.