WOW. Amelia was right there is gonna be a blood bath, but in the comment section 😂😂😂 they just can’t stop simping and honestly I would go for the harem kind way it’s enjoyable how is building it up. It’s like the second coming of gluttony but in the additional chapter was only implied and explained how it ended up in a harem like in order to not disrupt the history wise and the haters in a way.
He could marry all 3. Jesus, what a power house politically he’d be if that happened. if he also got Ragna, he’d then be the chancellor’s son in law too. Any attractive dwarves?
Author is really doubling down on cornering Bjorn into this heir conversation. I’d laugh if he gets it at the next meeting too, then all 3 meetings will be talking about it 🤣. Hopefully not though, I really wanna find out the royal dialog on Noark and their perspective on the basement, and if Bjorn gets any rewards or consequences…
They will likely call him greedy for not choosing a single partner and keeping his options open to having multiple partners. Then again, dragon mentioned he should have 3 kids by now and here we have 3 representatives offering/ fighting for daughters to be bedded by Bjorn.
Side note, I just noticed the very small notification bell top right of the comment section that shows me your guys reply’s to my comments. I will try to follow up better that I know of its existence lol.
i kinda feel bad for him but at the same time we need this cause this guy is dragging it im not one for harem i would rather him just be with aynar because shes best girl for me what she went through in the dread fear cave and more reinforced this for me but ill just say lets go harem route because i like the wizard too
I usually hate harem but honestly I'm for it here. He owes it to multiple women for stringing then along, and they haven't tried dating anyone else. Most of them have made sacrifices for him and proven their loyalty (except for Misha.)Most importantly, he just needs to stop being an absolute wimp and make a choice. This shit is tiring.
I think Erwin is the one he’s really strung along. He knows how she feels about him but doesn’t address it. He’s addressed it with Misha, but you know that story. Anyone else hasn’t really been conveyed beyond comraderie tbh, even though potential is there.Not disputing anything else you said, but just wanted to point that out
The fact that we notice the harem building means he does too but he just pretends not to or rationalizes it away. He did the same thing with Misha but was forced to admit it when confronted by Dwalki. He admitted he knew she loved him and confronted her. Why would you believe his inner monologue again with everyone else? He knows. Just like he knew with Misha and just like we know now
I would say Misha has showed a lot of loyalty?? After Bjorn vanished she was rdy to betray the frickijg royal family and sided with Traitors so she could revive Bjorn. Ik she kept that fact hidden from Bjorn even after meeting up but she thought it was in his best interest.
That's huge though. We've gone over this before in the chat but basically she betrayed not just Bjorn but the entire party. By giving info about them to Baekho, she potentially put the entire party in danger. This is especially relevant since she knows how strong and unhinged he is. She also kept it a secret even AFTER she joined Bjorn. Your argument that she did it for his best interests evaporates when she finally admitted it when threatened to get kicked out of the party. That was 100% self serving. Literally nothing else changed. If it was in his best interest not to know she was feeding information then she could have just been kicked out. This is literally just descriptively true. It’s ironic that all the Misha defenders can recognize bjorn's rationalizations but can't see it in themselves when simping for her. This is by far the biggest problem I have with chatters here because they can never admit this. Misha is a traitor with no accountability.
Your mistake is that you think being loyal means you do everything right. She made mistakes and did the wrong think but she never made the decision to betray Bjorn or to not be loyal to him
Betrayal is an act of deliberate disloyalty. The moment she decided to keep it hidden that she was spying on him and the gang for another potential adversary (one that she was already wary and afraid of) she was a traitor. I'd like to point out how you're rationalizing right now. Do you honestly think the is any army or country in the world that would be fine with someone SECRETLY sending reports about that force to another force? How well do you think their excuse of “everyone makes mistakes bro” will go?That's your mistake. You (and every other Misha simp) genuinely don't care whether or not she even is a traitor. Just say that. “Who cares if she's a traitor or not, it's okay because i love her a lot.” It sounds pathetic doesn't it? I suspect that's why you guys try so hard to deny her betrayal and refuse to hold her accountable, to avoid admitting what you really mean.
Bro what are you even typing about? Misha is not even in my Top 3. I am not blinded by my hatred like you are. The question in hand was if she is loyal or not. She did betray Bjorn, and a country, following your example, would probably kill or atleast imprisone her. That doesn't mean she never stopped doing it for his sake. She followed the way her loyality guided her. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong. The main discussion points is whether she is loyal or not. She believed herself to be loyal and thats the only answer you need.
Stick with the same example so you can see why your argument doesn't work. Tell the country that you spied against them for their sake. Does that make it better? Betrayal doesn't hinge on what the perpetrator considers betrayal, that makes literally no sense. There would never be betrayal then lol. It matters if the victims feel betrayed. The only intent that matters on Misha part is that it was deliberate. I'll make it easy for you. [Betray = 1.expose (one's country, a group, or a person) to danger by treacherously giving information to an enemy] It's literary the first definition in the dictionary.I'm repeating myself but, what changed from the day before Misha confessed to the day of? All that changed was that she was threatened to get kicked out. So how was that for bjorn's benefit and not self serving? Did she just conveniently realize, “actually, Baekho isn't that big of a deal anymore, it should be fine to tell him.” Go ahead and explain
You again get the main discussion point wrong. There is ni point to teach you any more than this. Still using the same example even though the consequences do not change the intention
I literary explained why her intent was irrelevant beyond it being intentional. It doesn't matter if she thinks she's loyal when she's objectively not. Again, betrayal is a deliberate act of disloyalty. You can't agree that she betrayed him then simultaneously claim she's still loyal. That's a contradiction you dingus. I swear everytime I argue with you Misha apologists it's the same thing. You can't even admit the descriptive truth. She betrayed him which means she's definitionally disloyal. That's just a fact. Intent means nothing after this.
I hate to jump back into this but…I’ve only seen you provide arguments for Bjorn's side, but I challenge you to try and see an argument for Misha's side. If you’re not able to do that, you’re not really open to discussion on this. If you want to look at this from a logical-only perspective, ignoring any ends-justify-the-means, you’ll need to examine both perspectives, Bjorn's and Misha's both. In this scope, Bjorn is actually worse offMIsha's transgressions were: rejecting Bjorn to help hide his status as an evil spirit, later declaring him as an evil spirit to get Baek Ho's help, and then returning and not telling Bjorn anything about her dealings with Baek ho (including the stone). She went with Baek ho only to bring Bjorn back (something Bjorn might have done himself if roles were reversed) and when she left, even after being threatened, she did not share info with Baek ho. From her perspective, she maintained her loyalty because her sole purpose was always the benefit of Bjorn.Bjorn, in turn, was emotionally hurt by these – he wasn’t aware of the circumstances, and even if he was, he probably would have suggested another way. However, he’s no angel himself, and in fact might be worse.Bjorn's transgressions: he initially conned Misha into an oath to be his companion using Skaadi (sure it ended up being to her benefit, but we’re ignoring ends-justify-the-means, right?), hid numerous secrets from her, put her at arms length after outing her affections for him (which surely hurt her), and worst off, knew she was with Baek ho because she thought he was dead and still left her. Mind you, he had the best of intentions, but if you’re going to disregard Misha's intentions, you’ll need to disregard Bjorn's as well. The road to hell is paved with good intentions anyway
Chris isnt worth engaging with. He outright says if he considers an argument emotional, (which he also does not define what he considers an emotional argument ever, meaning he can claim as such anytime he wants, and disregard as he likes), he disregards its legitimacy entirely, he claims he uses hard logic, but that logic is based only in himself, and his thoughts, and his personal perspective, which is not logical. He choses to ignore Nuance and circumstance. He outright says he will Brutally destroy arguments he thinks don’t use logic, saying others “Take it personally” when he admits to being a jerk about it. He then uses those people being upset at his rudeness as a sign that he has “won” the battle of logic, as he seems to see any and all emotion as a sign of Intellectual Weakness and further disregards anything said at that point. He actively argues in bad faith, and then when called on it, tries to flip the script.
I think I jumped back into this convo – 1) because I lack self control 😅 and 2) because some part of me hopes that if someone engages him in the way he’s asking, maybe he might find value in that dialog. If it gets disregarded as simply “sympathizing” this time too, then at least I have some justification for throwing that hope out the window. I’m not opposed to meeting someone where they are at, but if I go there and they’re not actually there, that’s it for me 😋
Don’t worry about that as you’re one of the few people that actually makes valid arguments. No surprise as you’re not afraid to engage with people with opposite viewpoints with actual good faith. I see you sometimes use the Socratic Method, likely intuitively, in many of your posts which already demonstrates you’re not trying to win regardless of the conclusion. That’s good.
Lol. Of course you’re confused about definitions, you seem to like to change them at whim. I mean the actual classical definitions of words when I use them. Like just in the dictionary. Pretty simple and straight forward. That might seem alien to you but words have meanings. So an emotional argument is type of rhetoric that appeals to an audiences feelings rather than objective measure like facts or logic. Believe it or not, logic isn’t a social construct that is subjective, it’s actually a modal necessity absent a human mind or perspective. That means it’s objective and has laws that govern it Ashlen. It’s by definition not arbitrary and anyone can appeal to it as such without misunderstanding. It’s no surprise you can’t accept this as you’re self admittedly not logic driven which you shamefully admitted in our argument on chapter 589 when you said, “Oh i stopped using logic….” The moment you said this, you revealed that you don’t actually care about reaching a correct conclusion, and just care about validating your feelings. It’s bad faith by definition. This means the arguments that you made were purely emotional or irrational nonsense by definition again. This is a simple “if A then B” example which I doubt you understand what that means so I’ll just tell you that it’s a concept in logic and math that is again purely objective. It means you’re not logic based but emotion based. Naturally your arguments would be as well. With all that said, I doubt you even care since it makes you feel bad therefore you will reject it. Good job!
I’d actually go as far as saying that Misha’s sole transgression was the secret spying. Everything else could be justified. Even if you actually disagree with her decisions like her rejection of Bjorn, that's still justified as that actually was an example of her being selfless (sort of as she did hit it and quit it.) It's also not a betrayal. The only betrayal that happened was with hiding the spying. Again, she definitionally factually betrayed Bjorn and co and it sounds like you're trying to deny that by saying she didn't give up any info. She did though. She just said it was irrelevant info. She doesn't get to decide that and neither does Bjorn really. Baekho does as none of them actually know what he wants to hear. Not to mention it's common practice to start small with blackmail or spy work, then slowly move on to bigger things over time. This would never be an acceptable defense anywhere in the world for spying. So again the entailment is that she isn't trustworthy or as trustworthy as non traitors.Second, bjorn's transgressions are irrelevant in Misha’s defense. That's classic what aboutism but more importantly that's an argument from hypocrisy fallacy. Even if you accept everything you said as correct that doesn't change the fact that Misha is a traitor however I can still make a case for Bjorn. He is the chosen leader of the group. This means his group have entrusted their lives to this man and there decision making abilities. Even if they disagree, they trust him so much that they're willing to listen regardless. Misha betrayed everyone by potentially setting them up for a situation where they couldn't prepare for Baekho taking away the agency of everyone's choices to follow bjorn's lead.You’re falling for the same trap as Martin did with Misha's intentions. The only intent that matters was if she did it on purpose. That's it. That makes it betrayal. Definitionally. If intent mattered then betrayal wouldn't exist as everyone that did it would think they had a good reason. That doesn't make any sense. If you actually want to engage logically with my arguments you have to: show she didn't betray Bjorn (she definitively did so good luck) by either showing she unknowingly spied or didn't keep it a secret from Bjorn. She already admitted to both so she's a self admitted traitor. She can mitigate the fallout by actually taking accountability which she has avoided. This requires her to admit to the group what she did as they're also victims and accepting the consequences of that. If they want her gone then she's gone. If they never trust her again then too bad accept it. This won't excuse her behavior but it will show genuine remorse and responsibility for her actions. She has to earn that trust back
I’m back, and ready to binge read 🙂 but first…Re: Misha giving up info – fair enough, you’re right she did give up info before coming back to the group proper. It’s not specified exactly when she did that (before she knew Bjorn was alive, or right after she found out), so I can’t really use that as a basis. All we know from her account was that it was non-relavant info, which doesn’t excuse it on its own, though given what we know of her character, it does track.Still, if you’re willing to base the betrayal argument on that alone, i’ll bite and roll with you on that. It wasn’t an intended backstab (following Bjorn's logic to give up an arm to save both feet), but its true she still could have inadvertently given Baek Ho the missing key he needed to really threaten Bjorn, something she wouldn’t have realized. There are cases like this in the real world, where seemingly unimportant information provided to foreign adversaries can be the confirmation they need of national secrets.I think a lot of the challenges with discussing this resolves around separating her actions (which is more factual) from the subjective position of what sentence should fit the crime. I think everyone can agree she did a bad thing, but the severity of her transgressions and whether she should be forgiven or not is something not everyone gauges by pure logic. It’s also something that usually factors in the person's level of remorse, as well as the victim's level of loss. I think it’s important to separate the two, as I believe your core point primarily focuses on acknowledging her transgressions, rather than assigning a level of forgivability – though lemme know if that’s inaccurateAite, i’m off to catch up on chaps! Catch you in the comments
Someone made a point that she said she didn't actually give up any info according to the interrogation. I remembered her giving up some irrelevant info but I'm more than willing to accept she didn't. Ultimately, it doesn't matter as the betrayal is her choosing to listen to the orders of Baekho over loyalty to Bjorn. As I said, once you're willing to betray even a little bit they can just make you do more since you're already a traitor. I'm not even saying she irredeemable, btw. She's just not as trustworthy as the rest of the gang, including Auyen as they haven't shown themselves to betray Bjorn and co. That can change in the future obviously, but for now she's shown disloyalty. As I explained to Arsonist, loyalty is binary. You either are or you aren't. She isn't, and the rest of the group is (so far.) So the descriptive statement: Misha is a traitor, or Misha betrayed Born is simply accurate. The entailment is Misha shouldn't be trusted as you shouldn't trust traitors is also accurate. That can change, especially if the condition that caused Misha to betray Bjorn ceases to exist. Either bjorn's life can't be threatened anymore (not just by Baekho but any overwhelming force) or by Misha fully trusting Bjorn and respecting his leadership and choices. Logically, until one of those 2 conditions are met, she's not trustworthy. This was arsonists problem. He was married to an untenable position of never holding any traitors accountable as long as they believed their reason was good enough. That's obviously a purely emotional/arbitrary standard that isn't even remotely feasible. That's why I try to stick to our truth first or logical arguments. Most people can't understand that in order to have logical arguments, you need to ground them to an objective standard that will outlast the person making the argument. If I die tomorrow, anyone can continue my arguments as they're grounded in definitions and descriptive statements. If the people making arbitrary arguments die, their arguments die with them as only they can decide what they are. I know Ashlen is your friend but she's the queen of arbitrary/emotional arguments.
Just gonna toss this out there, but did we forget that she was threatened with Bjorn's death if she didn't rat on him? Im not saying she's absolved of everything but i feel like that takes it down a notch, no?
No because that’s still true now. Why isn't that an issue anymore as soon as she's being threatened getting kicked from the party. What changed from the day before she was forced to confess to then? Only that she was about to be booted. Why isn't it magically an issue after she confessed now. What's to stop her from betraying him again as well? Why wouldn't Baekho threaten to kill Bjorn again to get her to do worse things? Stop making excuses
There's no need to get so worked up, man. I'm just trying to offer perspectives you might not have considered.On the point of Misha still being threatened by Baekho, that's true, she is. When Bjorn asked her if she would still give out information she said that she probably would. She's still very much afraid for Bjorn's safety. That said, she did say that she would only ever give basic information that anyone could see while in the presence of Misaligned Trust, which sounds flimsy in any situation, but in the presence of the item guarantees that she at least believes it to be true. And you keep saying she was going to get booted but the only one who ever had any relevant text about Misha leaving was Misha herself. She didn't accept the questioning to stay in the party, she did it to try and repair her relationship with Bjorn. I can't see any text about Bjorn ejecting her from the party, just that he couldn't trust her before the questioning.In your back and forth with Martin you'd questioned armies or countries being fine with someone secretly sending reports. On the topic of realism there's a legal defense called duress, where a person or people claim to be forced into committing a crime. If the defense is proven then the defendant is almost always either acquitted of the charge or at the very least their sentence is lessened.But lets get this all lined up. So Misha is coerced into relaying information to Baekho, the definition of duress, accepts what is basically a magically accurate lie detector and reveals all the information she feels embarrassment or guilt over, and is somehow the villain. This sounds a lot like victim blaming to me. Being forced into an impossible situation and not finding the right answer is pretty human i'd say. Again, not saying she's totally absolved, but i dont think she deserves all that flak.That's it for the points i've seen you make here, but i have a question for you. You seem to think she could've handled her situation differently, or better somehow. How so?(good lord i’ve created a wall, maybe i am a misha simp.)(Edit: Sorry for the late reply, i was on my lunch break when i posted the first message.)
Let me clarify that I’m never worked up at all about this. I might seem abrasive from tone but that’s only because I don’t value emotional arguments or appeals to emotion at all. So I discard any of them and never use them myself. I’m strictly logic based and make all of my arguments with that in mind. I’m genuinely interested in hearing arguments that can point out any inconsistencies or contradictions. If you (or any other Misha apologists) have any arguments that are logically valid I would love to hear them. The problem is when I point out contradictions and inconsistencies in the logical structure of the arguments and still get push back. I will always call that out directly and brutally which many can take personally. So let’s see if you can actually follow. Is it true that Misha is a traitor? The answer is an indisputable yes. Definitionally, she betrayed Bjorn and company which makes her a traitor. Again, this is just a fact. This is what most simps refuse to accept. Which makes them indisputably wrong. It sounds like you can at least accept this fact and are just trying to justify it. Fair enough, let’s see if your argument is valid. Her stated reason for choosing to betray them was to keep Bjorn safe. That’s the premise you’re using to justify her betrayal. You then say this, “She didn't accept the questioning to stay in the party, she did it to try and repair her relationship with Bjorn.” Okay, how does that keep Baekho from harming Bjorn? How is that not just self serving? If she was keeping it a secret as instructed then just blabbed because she didn’t want to lose him, then isn’t she now directly putting Bjorn in harms way for her desire to be with him if she thinks Baekho meant what he said? Either she doesn’t believe that he’s in danger anymore (which why would she) or she doesn’t care because she wants him more than she cares about his safety. In either case, the original premise for her defense is wrong. Now, lets see what the logical entailment is to this. If she already betrayed them, what’s to keep Baekho from doing the same thing again? Why not say that Bjorn is for sure going to die unless she does something even worse next time? He could even lie and say the royal family is going to kill him right? So isn’t the entailment that Misha doesn’t really deserve to be trusted? At least as much as everyone else in the party? Seriously, why should they trust her again after that? Please make a case there.Lastly duress doesn’t apply at all. The threat has to be immediate. She had time to tell Bjorn what was up and let him prepare or decide what to do. Which is what she should have done to answer your question. “Hey Bjorn, Baekho gave me the resurrection stone and said I had to spy on you for him. He said you’d die if I told you about it. What should we do?” Problem solved. She remains loyal, and doesn’t take away Bjorn’s agency from him. Easy.
>>I’m genuinely interested in hearing arguments that can point out any inconsistencies or contradictions. I'm glad to hear it, some parts of your responses seemed to use some heated words from an outside perspective, i can only imagine how defensive i'd feel if they were directed at me 🙂 >>How does that keep Baekho from harming Bjorn? To this point, Baekho doesn't know for sure that she's told Bjorn about the arrangement. If the first rendezvous happens as planned or scheduled then from both Misha's and Baekho's perspective nothing is wrong. (I mean, we know different because of what happened in the GhostBusters chatroom but she didn't/doesn't) >>How is that not just self serving?I think you're looking at this more as a business problem than an interpersonal problem. The truth is that no information has been leaked. Misha hasn't met with Baekho since she left, all there ever was was reluctant intent. Just to cover my ass here, i'm not saying that makes it okay, i'm saying from a business point of view, the problem was nipped in the bud and the only damage that was actually done was interpersonal.On the interpersonal side, every attempt to fix a relationship is self-serving to some degree. She can see the way he looks at her and see how betrayed he feels. We can see from the way he talks to her around the time of the questioning and it is much more distant and subdued. People are empathetic creatures, especially toward a loved one. If you saw your partner hurting like that would you not want to fix it? So yeah, its as self-serving as any attempt to mend a relationship ever is. That doesn’t make it outright selfish, but self is definitely a part of it. >>[…]isn’t she now directly putting Bjorn in harms way for her desire to be with him if she thinks Baekho meant what he said?I don't think she had any reasonable alternative once Misaligned Trust was brought out. I'm probably not thinking of all her options here but i'll try. 1. She keeps it a secret and doesn't submit to the questioning. She then can't report on anything decent anyway and her relationship with bjorn is gone forever. (She's depressed to the point of thinking Bjorn would like to see her leave just before the questioning, too.) I don't think this would be a satisfying narrative for the reader either, but not only that it would've cemented her as someone who could never be trusted. If any repairs were to ever happen then, they'd have to happen dozens or a hundred chapters later at that point.2. She just runs away like she was thinking of before the questioning. Probably truer to her personality since she's a social coward, but where would she run to? She's in the basement floor. The author has things to do so that we can get on with the story, we don't need to spend 2 or 3 more chapters on the search for Misha when ultimately we end up where we did anyway.3. Going back earlier, to before entering the basement, if she'd told Bjorn from the beginning that Baekho was forcing her to inform on him then from her perspective that'd be breaking the agreement and risking Baekho making good on his promise. And if that happens he kills Bjorn and forces her to use the resurrection stone anyway.From a personal point of view, I too think SHE SHOULD HAVE TOLD HIM to begin with, but that doesn't make for drama. And we know she's a coward about these things so it makes sense that she didnt. Not logical sense, cuz if characters had that we'd lose half the entertainment or in this case, (personally,) filler. Admitting to something like that would take courage she doesn't have.4. She gives up on Bjorn and stays with Baekho and is later forced to either fight Bjorn or turn on Baekho for him. I don't mind the idea of her acting as a double agent for Bjorn in the service of Baekho. The trouble with that is to sell the story we'd need to be lead to believe that she's taken the betrayal to a whole new level, which i don't think would sit well with a lot of people. A decision to stay with Baekho after all she did to get the Stone of Resurrection, all those years spent in the labyrinth with someone she despises, wouldn't make much sense either. Plus keep that NTR shit out of my entertainment. You know, thinking about it, if Bjorn hadn't confronted Baekho in Ghost Busters, then Baekho would be none the wiser and Misha and Bjorn could've used the situation to their advantage. Not trying to assign blame here, just thinking about what could've been neat. But anyway, it's not that she doesn't think he's in danger or that she cares more about her feelings, she had to answer. And despite her wanting to run away she chose honesty in the end. Not as early as she should have, mind you, but we got there in the end. And i think that yes, she should still fear for his safety. Even her saying that she would still pass on the information speaks to that point. She's seen where Bjorn is in terms of strength, sure, but she's seen where Baekho is too. Sure, we've seen Bjorn power up all this time but her still fearing for his safety should speak to just how brokenly powerful Baekho is. I don't think our boy wins yet. At the very least he won't come out unscathed.[Come on man stop asking so many questions! I'm writing a damn essay here!] >>If she already betrayed them, what’s to keep Baekho from doing the same thing again?None of the party members would've found a right answer in Misha's situation. Baekho's ultimate goal with Misha was to get her to resurrect Bjorn without getting his own hands dirty (or maybe there's a relationship restriction like with Aynar's new ability and he can't use the stone.) With most of the other companions it would've gone the same way if not a lot faster. Aynar and Amelia would've either died fighting Baekho or Baekho would've taken the faster method of killing Bjorn and using the stone. Erwin would've either done the same thing as Misha or gone the way of Aynar and Amelia. Raven probably would've done the same thing as Misha, though would've likely brought it up before Bjorn had to bring out Misaligned Trust, but at that point nothing is different, from your points it would still be self-serving to rid herself of the guilt, and it would still be a betrayal. Any of the players in the clan would've folded immediately, so no hope there. So from your questions, I don't see any of them being trustworthy given the same situation. The only ones who don't go along with it either end up dead or end up as the reason Bjorn is dead. I'm sure the only reason Baekho chose Misha instead of Erwin or Raven is that Raven is protected by the magic tower, so he couldn't quietly approach her, and Erwin is too unstable. He might also know about her history with the Ruin Scholar, so that factors in too. Aynar's a bad pick for this too because she'd fight him to the death for suggesting Bjorn's an evil spirit or simply for being an evil spirit.Looking at the characters as they are, none of them would've handled the situation much better. Best case scenario is Bjorn learns about it a little sooner, but the problem still persists. Baekho is still stronger than Bjorn.>>Duress doesn't apply at all.Ah! you're right, that's my bad. Duress does indeed involve coercion to only the primary party. However, duress has a sibling defense called necessity. A defense of necessity is functionally the same as duress, however the threats are directed at a third party. I should've looked into that more, my mistake. Honestly the distinction is a good one. I find necessity a much more compelling and self-less justification.To that note, IF the threat had been directed at her and she was doing all of this out of self interest or self preservation like you say she was, then i'd agree that she's a complete traitor, maybe even thot. But i feel like you're glossing over the fact that Bjorn is still in real danger. Misha knows more about how powerful Baekho is than we do. I don't think it's a good call to just dismiss the threat he poses. And again, ANY of the companions put into her situation either play it the same or make it worse. Except Raven, who probably would've told him before Misaligned Trust. Which sucks for me because i despise tsun.>>[…]Problem solved. This type of solution only ever appears in situations where there's no emotion involved, like hindsight or an outside perspective. All of the party members, except for perhaps the players, are too emotional for this to actually occur to them until after the danger has passed. Misha was and still is scared for Bjorn's safety. Not to mention she's in her.. what.. 20s? Nobody that i've met in their 20s is mature enough to make decisions like that, and the ones that say they are don't know themselves well enough to say what they would really do. I often see what they'd really do later in albeit less impactful situations. If it was as easy as you say it is then why is it that so many crimes either go unreported despite being witnessed or experienced? Why is it that so often, when someone is forced into committing a crime like Misha was, they only confess under pressure from an authority figure or spouse? Emotions like fear, guilt, doubt and embarrassment keep people from making level headed decisions. Anyone who would think of that in the moment either doesn't fear Baekho as much as Misha does, which why wouldn't they if they're as familiar with his strength as she is, or care more about Bjorn's agency than they do about keeping him safe. Which yea, from an outside perspective i agree that honest is the best policy, always and in any situation. But honesty isn't nearly as easy as you seem to think it is when emotions are present. [Good lord im into my third page here! Please! Fewer questions!! I’m dying!!]
This ones a biggy so I’m going to try to compress it down as much as I can. >>To this point, Baekho doesn't know for sure that she's told Bjorn about the arrangement. If the first rendezvous happens as planned or scheduled then from both Misha's and Baekho's perspective nothing is wrong. (I mean, we know different because of what happened in the GhostBusters chatroom but she didn't/doesn't)This doesn’t matter as it’s true for every instance of spying/treason. They never know if their plant has already confessed, yet they still take the information even though it could be purposefully leaked intel. That’s not really a defense, especially considering that we know she didn’t collude with Bjorn to do that. Think of it in real world terms. If you know you have a plant and feed them false intel so they can feed your enemy false intel, the mole is still a traitor even though they didn’t give any vital intel. You said “I think you're looking at this more as a business problem than an interpersonal problem,” but that’s incorrect. I’m viewing it as a descriptive truth. It’s just what factually happened. You don’t express that in your counter arguments which so they start from a faulty foundation. If you need money and your spouse secretly betrays you by sleeping with men for money to help you, that doesn’t justify it. Further, why would you trust that spouse in the future when they rationalized betraying you for your benefit and they can do it again? This is a problem you keep ignoring. I don’t care what her emotional state is or what her intentions were because they factually do not matter. She’s a known traitor that broke their trust, why should they assume she won’t do it again given that she rationalized it and hasn’t understood that she did so. Why wouldn’t she do it again if she feels justified in doing it the first time? This is the argument you need to attack to dismantle my point.>>I don't think she had any reasonable alternative once Misaligned Trust was brought out.This is the last point you guys can’t get passed. If A=Bjorn finds out about her spying, and B=Bjorn dies, then she can’t let Bjorn find out right? That’s your argument for her justification. This is broken down the moment she willingly contributed to A. That means if she believes her “if A then B” she literally just killed Bjorn. Again that’s just descriptively true. A didn’t have a caveat that said, well if you really have no other choice…, or if your relationship will get ruined. It’s simply if A then B. If she actually believed A->B she would have just said, “Bjorn I can’t tell you no matter what but I’m doing it for your own good. If that means you can’t trust me I understand but I’m going to keep helping you the way I think is best.” She didn’t, instead she chose to “kill” him. If you want to dismantle my argument then point out an inconsistency here or a contradiction. That’s how you make an actual logical counterpoint that isn’t an emotional appeal. That’s how I’d be wrong. Lastly, what I think a lot of you are forgetting is that it makes sense for Misha to trust Baekho over Bjorn. I’m not sure but I believe that post time skip she’s been with Baekho longer than she has with Bjorn right? That was a long time to slowly lose her feelings and trust in him when working with someone else. Her goal was to bring him back which was incredibly loyal but when directly pressed to follow the order of one over the other she chose Baekho. Again this is descriptively true, the reason why doesn’t matter.
You’ve glossed over the fact that she hasn’t given any information. Not just any useful information, but any information. The chapter number is 580 if you want to see […] [edited: After reading this back i was kinda driving this into the dirt, fixed]>>This doesn’t matter as it’s true for every instance of spying/treason. They never know if their plant has already confessed, yet they still take the information even though it could be purposefully leaked intel.Your question was how does it keep Baekho from harming Bjorn. I admit that i didn’t do a particularly good job on this point, and it was an overarching point you were trying to make. You’ve made it again, so I'll tackle that in the next part.>>[…]”if A then B” she literally just killed Bjorn.Your point doesn’t have contradictions but it seems to hinge on her belief in A>B always being at 100% or always being 0%. Peoples’ decision making processes aren’t that black and white. Reasoning is about looking at the known variables and determining which outweighs which. It could well be the case that when the journey started the A>B belief was at 100% and it deteriorated until all it took was the nudge from Bjorn in the form of a question to spill. The longer someone is removed from a threat the less of a hold it has on them. Like you state later, people don’t think or feel the same things at the same level forever and they spent months down there That’s a lot of time to mull it over. At the start she had no frame of reference for Bjorn’s strength other than when he disappeared on the island. If that was were he was at then he’d have no hope of surviving the encounter, so A>B is at 100%. Since then she’s witnessed Bjorn getting his allies out of every tough situation they’ve been in and tanking a level 1 monster (though aided and healed by the Royal Army). Seeing that he’s so much stronger than he was before, though still not quite as strong as Baekho, could be why she didn’t say anything at first but held nothing back when asked. Hell it could well be the case that if the arrangement had stayed under wraps she may have talked to Bjorn after returning to the city or even before leaving the basement. Didn’t have the chance though since butterfly mask and the gods prevented the opportunity, so that’s straight speculation.So in short, the decision making process is more complex than ‘this is always this or it was never this.’ It makes sense to think that way in a vacuum but this is a situation that has evolved over months. >>[…] it makes sense for Misha to trust Baekho over Bjorn.You’re 100% right that she’s spent more time with Baekho than with Bjorn. Even disregarding the 2 years of city time, she was in the dungeon on floor 7 and potentially later than that, which means the time extension is crazy. But since we’re given insight into her actions and thoughts, so we know that she hated every second of it. She treated Baekho like a walking talking stain, and when he asked her for a favor (which she interpreted as a threat to her) she turned him down without even hearing what it was way back in chapter 473. Well until the threat upon Bjorn anyway. >>[…] descriptively true, the reason why doesn’t matter.While it is true that she followed Baekho’s order, there was no order from Bjorn to defy, so this isn’t a narrative of choosing Baekho over Bjorn. And the reason does matter. That’s the entire reason we have defenses like duress (doesnt apply, i know) and necessity (does apply.) Again, she chose to deny Baekho without even hearing the request, but was threatened into doing it anyway. So Misha has one count of intent to commit espionage (580) and a rock solid necessity defense since we’re vaguely omniscient and know what happened in 473. I’d say that while she’s not off the hook, she definitely still doesn’t deserve all the flak.THANK you for compressing it! Oh god that last one was rough.
You’re right I am under that impression since I believed I read that she said she only gave up irrelevant info to Baekho about them. I remember reading about this before the confrontation with Bjorn. So for the sake of the argument I’ll just concede that point because I don’t want to reread those chapters, because that doesn’t actually tackle my point. My argument is that she committed betrayal the moment she accepted to spy for him and kept it a secret from Bjorn. That’s why I said the only intent that matters is whether she did it intentionally. It’s not up to her to decide how relevant that info is or if she follows through with it. In order to see what I’m saying always ground it to a standard that holds even with different people. Is there any country that would be fine with a trusted ally agreeing to spy on them for an enemy then being caught before they successfully leak intel? When would that ever be okay? They would still be considered traitors. They would still not trust them anymore. It wouldn’t make sense to right? So regardless of all these excuses or justifications answer that question. Is it wise to continue to trust someone that rationalized betraying you? That they only admitted it because they were caught?If A then B isn’t exactly what you think it is. The example that is used is If it is raining (A), then the ground is wet (B). It’s a logical/mathematical concept that can be complicated as it’s not an absolute claim like you’re thinking. Regardless, that wasn’t my point as I don’t believe that’s true. What I’m saying is that anyone that makes the argument that she did it for Bjorn’s sake must believe that my example of A -> B is true. That’s literally a requirement for the argument to even be made. Again, apply the situation to any other example. You catch a traitor and they say, “Yeah I was going to leak out intel to your enemy but after you caught me I now realize that you guys are actually much stronger than I thought so I decided I won’t anymore. We’re cool now right?” Before you make counter arguments, make sure you’re tackling the situation descriptively in all scenario’s in order to avoid bias. Consistency is key. There doesn’t need to be an exact order to betray someone. It can be implied. You can’t marry someone and cheat on them then say, “babe you never said I couldn’t cheat on you!” Or take money from an open register and claim no one told you that it wasn’t cool. This is called the Air Bud Defense btw (there’s no rule saying a dog can’t play basketball.)I forgot to tell you before but necessity doesn’t apply either. You were closer with duress. Duress= open the vault or I’ll kill you. Necessity= Break into a cabin during a blizzard to survive. Both require immediate threats. Duress can apply to a loved one but it has to be immediate. So point the gun at you spouse/child and say “open the vault or I shoot them.” The reason duress doesn’t apply is because it’s not immediate. She could have told Bjorn to prepare for Baekho. Like you can’t write a letter and say, “open the vault on x day or I’ll kill you some time.” That doesn’t work.
The >> method is being spread too much here so i’ll skip it.In your first point you mention that her intent to betray is the main issue and i don’t disagree. Her initially intending, and to be frank her continued intention during the questioning, which is a bit for me to wrap my head around, is a problem. But since this is an interpersonal problem shouldn’t we keep the scale interpersonal? You later mention cheating so lets expand on that by saying this is less like an cold unfeeling country dealing with a spy and more like your spouse is being blackmailed into eventually sleeping with someone when they’re called upon. I would say that the victim of the blackmail is only guilty of having something to be blackmailed with and the intention to keep it from getting out by acquiescing to the blackmailers demands. I wouldn’t call anyone in that situation a cheater, i’d call them a victim. That said, that’s a vacuum case and involves the spouse not finding out. In this case the spouse did find out, and there was a dialogue. Well, a q and a session, not so much a dialogue. The trouble here is that our spouse isn’t doing anything to help.The argument you were making did get across in your second point here, but you seem to have misunderstood mine. In the beginning, the only relevant party, Misha, did believe it to be true. So her intention to leak information was for his sake, by your gracious words. But it didn’t remain as such for the duration of the journey. Again, months happened. That’s a lot of time and circumstance to change someone’s mind. And i think you might be intentionally missing my point so i’ll use something akin to your example to make it more clear. I see it as closer to “Yes, i intend to leak information to the enemy because they threatened to nuke us if i didn’t, but seeing how you’ve expanded the country’s military power i’m starting to think i don’t need to. There’s still room for improvement, though, so to keep us from getting nuked I still intent to leak the information.” I don’t see the matter of being caught to be the issue at play here, and i definitely don’t think she tried to sweep it under the rug like your example suggests. The point i responded to for this third one there wasn’t articulated as another way of saying she simply betrayed Bjorn, you stated it as though she chose Baekho over Bjorn. When push came to shove it was the other way around, and she defied Baekho for Bjorn. Not simplybecause she was caught (that is not to say it wasn’t a factor), but because to some degree her fears were assuaged. None of my points have ever implied that she did it because nobody said she couldn’t, what i was trying to counter was the narrative that she somehow valued Baekho over Bjorn. (And dogs should remain able to play basketball. I… might have to watch that again now.)You’ve sent me down a rabbit hole for this last point. Some courts (particularly those in my country) have ruled that threats against a third party do fall under duress if the third party is a friend, family member, or is in some other way significant to the defendant. I misunderstood the first website i looked at because it said duress and necessity both use the basis of ‘normative involuntariness.’ It doesn’t make much sense that if someone says “assault that homeless guy or i’ll break your spine” that’s duress but if someone says “eat your neighbor’s dog or i murder your kid” that’s indefensible. At least in my country it DOES definitely fall under duress specifically. I don’t know the world-wide answer to this, and if i keep googling about it someone’s going to show up at my door and ask me if i’m abusing anyone or being abused, so i’m gonna stop there. I’ve got a lawyer friend in the states so maybe he can shed some light on it.Oh! Friend is getting back to me while i was proofreading. He’s taking a bit o_o;;10 minutes later…Okay, so in the states the defense of duress generally requires 1) the defendant received a threat of imminent harm of death or great bodily injury to himself or a third party. (My own research revealed that threats of an economic nature also apply to some degree.) 2) the belief must have been reasonable.So it’s duress in the states too. As i finish typing this i realize you might consider ‘my friend told me’ as flimsy at best and i don’t plan on doxxing him so this was kinda pointless.
Betrayal means the same thing whether you’re in an interpersonal scale or a global one. There isn’t a caveat in the dictionary for betrayal that says, “except for personal relationships.” Means the same thing so you can test it in both scales. If it holds in one scale it must hold in the other or you’re not talking about betrayal. Take your example of a cheating wife that was being blackmailed. Even in that case she’s literally betraying the husband regardless of intent. That’s definitionally true again. You can say it’s fine and not a big deal but that means it can keep happening in that case. Once you find out then it’s fine if she keeps doing it in order keep what the blackmailer knows a secret right? Forever and ever since it’s fine for her to keep her secret from being exposed. So either your standard is correct and the cheating continues or it’s wrong and it stops. Please defend that, it would be a hilarious position lol.No I understood you point perfectly, so let me see if I can rephrase it so that it comes across better. Lets stick to your nuke example. Is it okay then for a soldier to betray their nation if they’re threatened with getting nuked? In order for your standard to be true then that’s true for every single soldier. So anyone at any time can get threatened with destruction of their country in order to betray their country? You don’t think that that’s an unfeasible standard? You don’t think countries could have top secret defenses or capabilities that most soldiers aren’t privy too? I have to be honest, this is the most egregious argument you’ve made so far. This is so clearly not a rational standard that I’m questioning what your motive is for making it. You’ve essentially made loyalty arbitrary and self defined by every single person. You’ve made loyalty meaningless in order to rationalize betrayal. This is what I meant earlier about the arguments that Misha apologists make being emotion driven vs logic based. Please explain how your standard doesn’t make loyalty meaningless. I’m saying she chose to listen to Baekho’s demands over loyalty to Bjorn, which is simply a fact. That’s what happened. She valued Baekho’s order over Bjorn’s trust. She at the very least believes in Baekho’s ability to best Bjorn, even you admit that. However, you’re making an assertion that there were other contributing factors to her confessing. Yeah, please demonstrate that. When were her “fears asuaged?” We can read her thoughts so you should be able to point that out. I’m saying that her interrogation was the sole reason for her confessing as evidenced by the fact that she didn’t confess at anytime before. That’s a pretty big piece of evidence. I don’t remember her stating that she thought Bjorn was able to defend himself against Baekho now so prove me wrong then. Why isn’t the interrogation the only reason she confessed?Your friend is correct, duress is imminent harm from a person (guy with gun). Necessity is imminent harm from a non-person (blizzard.) I don’t think you understood what I meant last time but the problem lies with the word “imminent.” That’s another word for immediate. Bjorn was never in imminent threat so it doesn’t apply. This is evidenced by the fact he didn’t immediately die when Misha confessed. So duress doesn’t apply.
So on the small scale at least they're represented the same way; person to person instead of person to cold unfeeling entity. It's not fine, as i've been conceding this entire time, but it's not something simple like “just stop it duh.” If the root isn't addressed then it can't stop. The situational analog would be like this: Husband finds out his wife met with a shady guy and intends to meet again. Husband confronts her about it. She tells him what it's about, holding nothing back. The shady guy is blackmailing her with something that would be damning to both her and husband. The thing that she's being blackmailed with is close to being resolved, so it'll probably stop eventually, but not yet. Husband does nothing to help.What can she do? She can't stop because the root issue hasn't been resolved yet and she isn't getting any external help. It is wrong but it can't stop. That's how stuff like coercion and blackmail works and why so many fall victim to it.On the larger scale, each and every one of those soldiers can absolutely make the choice to leak that intel if the only choice is between leaking that intel or wilfully allowing the country to be obliterated. Loyalty is defined as a strong feeling of support or allegiance. So which of the two, and only two, options is more loyal or less loyal? Turn it into a really one-sided trolly problem like the soldiers think it is. Which do you choose? No third option here, pick one.Loyalty isn't meaningless and it never is. However, sometimes it’s difficult. In this case it's the deciding factor in which option most would choose. Both options suck but one is clearly better than the other.We're back to the which is more loyal question above here. Wilfully let him die or give up some information when asked. And yup, that continues to my my stance, and continues to be the reason that she made the decision for his sake. And like i said, looking at it your way makes sense in a vacuum. But did she not see Bjorn face-tank a level 1 monster? Was there not months of time away from the threat of Baekho? Is there not a great deal of contributing factor to literally any decision? You're only looking at what is explicitly there in front of you, but you have a human brain that evolved in order to recognize patterns and fill in gaps. Why aren't you using it here? As to your point of wanting me to find evidence of her fears being assuaged, which you so venomously put in quotations, there’s a gap between parts that show her perspective that’s over 100 chapters wide. That’s the best you’ll get, and i think it’s a compelling position. But you're getting a bit heated and provocative here. Lets move on.Aaaand yup, i realized my mistake about 45 minutes after i posted. But you were already replying so it didn't seem right to correct myself in the middle of that. There HAS to be a defence for committing a crime under constant threat of harm if the assailants conditions aren't met. It's just a longer version of the same thing. I mean i could even see one arguing that the threat was imminent not specifically for Bjorn being kept unaware, but for Misha not relaying information. But I'm not going to look any deeper into it. I'll just drop this point.And a section of my own to try and address the overarching point of this days long conversation that you seem tired of as well. You believed and i think still believe that she betrayed him in an unjustifiable way, answered Bjorn's questions out of purely self interest, and would continue to betray him given the opportunity, and as such she should never again be trusted. To these i say it was an impossible situation and she did the best she could with the information she had, stories won't give you literally every piece of information and characters are more complex than you give them credit for, and the issue is only repeatable as long as Baekho can threaten Bjorn, which will not be forever. Baekho's reached the end of his build. He's not going to get more powerful himself, and Bjorn is still growing like mad. If i'm remembering right, Bjorn figured that he'd well out-pace Baekho's build by time he reached a similar level. Also, to the point of Misha repeating the offence if prompted, any of the members would do the same or worse like i said before. It doesn't make sense to single her out when the others would perform just as poorly. Overall, from any point of view that doesn’t solely judge a character mechanically, you’ve condemned a character that’s written in a way that makes them flawed and human. If that’s your bag, then might i suggest some of the early DC comics? None of those early stories explored anything relatable and opted to keep the situations larger than life and meant to be read from a very detached perspective. And I'm afraid that's all the energy i can spare, man. It pains me that we didn't really get through to each other but with this sort of thing there's never any actual leeway. You'll say there might've been some change if I'd seen the reason behind your mechanical points of view and I'll say to make the problems mechanical and black and white is to deny all the characters the very thing that makes them compelling to so many. And on and on and on and nothing will change. Keep going if youwant, but i won't reply. I'm going to bed.
Firstly, I’m going to reiterate that I’m not heated at all. As I said before, reading tone from a post is difficult as it doesn’t translate correctly. I’m actually really enjoying the exchange as I like seeing people thought processes play out even when reaching a different conclusion, especially when it’s done in good faith which you are. I don’t care what conclusion you reach, more how you arrive at the conclusion (which I’ll explain later.) Remember, that I told you my arguments are strictly truth/logic based. That means my arguments will never take into account comfort in place of truth, no matter what that truth is. It also means I mean exactly what I say with the words that I use with dictionary definitions in mind.So let’s get to what I’m seeing your problem is now when you’re constructing your arguments. You’re having an issue with ‘is vs ought’ which means descriptive vs prescriptive. My ‘is’ is that Misha is definitionally a traitor with the logical entailment being that she ‘ought’ not to be as trusted as much as non-traitors. That’s it. In order for you to argue against it logically, you have to: 1.Accept the ‘is’ (she is definitionally a traitor) but disagree with the ‘ought’ (but she should still be trusted as much as non-traitors.) 2. Deny the ‘is’ (she is not definitionally a traitor) by replacing the ‘is’ with your own then bridging it to your ‘ought’ claim. We literally can’t have an argument until you either accept or reject the description ‘is’ claim. So let’s take your blackmail example now under this lens. ‘Is’ it true that the wife betrayed the husband? Definitionally yes. You’re trying to justify it not to deny the ‘is’ but to mitigate my prescription or ‘ought.’ You also unknowingly made another is claim that reinforces my ‘ought’ which is the wife values her secret over loyalty to her husband. That’s my point. The husband shouldn’t trust this wife as much as a wife that doesn’t betray him right? This is the ‘ought’ you need to directly contend with. Same as with Misha.The reason I said your loyalty standard is your most egregious argument (meaning outstandingly/shockingly bad) is because you’ve made the meaning of a word arbitrary. To know what loyalty means you need to know what loyal mean. Loyal – giving or showing firm and constant support or allegiance to a person or institution. Keywords are constant and firm. The moment you make loyalty conditional based off of anyone’s own interpretation, you’ve made ‘loyalty’ meaningless. You’re actually defending self-preservation disguised as loyalty which is self-serving. So loyalty actually is simple it’s literally black and white. Loyalty is definitionally binary, either you are or you aren’t. You’re making it more complicated because you don’t understand this. This is why I question your motives here. You’ve made an untenable position. Are you actually trying to use logic here to arrive at a conclusion or choosing comfort over truth?
As to your point of wanting me to find evidence of her fears being assuaged, which you so venomously put in quotations, there’s a gap between parts that show her perspective that’s over 100 chapters wide.
That’s just a baseless assertion though. The reason I quoted you was to highlight exactly what you need to provide evidence for in order to create a foundation to bridge it to your argument. You don’t have an argument until you can do that, otherwise it’s just an opinion. This means someone can just say, “Nu uhh” and it would be just as valid as what you’re saying. What I’m trying to tell you is even if you find evidence here for your position, you’d still be facing an uphill battle because you’d have to reconcile why she didn’t come forward in those 100 chapters willingly. The hardest hitting evidence against your case is that if you’re right and she realized at some point that Bjorn had the capability to defend against Baekho, then she would have told him before she was forced to. This means the logical entailment is that your assumption isn’t the reason for her not to tell him. No matter what justification you come up with you have to reconcile it with the fact she only stepped forward when interrogated, so your reason must explain that as well. Otherwise, my position, that she only confessed because of the interrogation, stands.
You believed and i think still believe that she betrayed him in an unjustifiable way, answered Bjorn's questions out of purely self interest, and would continue to betray him given the opportunity, and as such she should never again be trusted.
That’s not right. She’s a known traitor that has shown disloyalty to Bjorn (regardless of the reason even if we assume it’s justified) which means she’s not guaranteed to betray him again but more likely to do so than the other party members. That’s purely a logical entailment. If you see person A has a history of lying. Then person A is a liar. Tell person B to be cautious about person A because they lie. Does that not make sense? Isn’t this likelier to happen if the original conditions for Misha’s excuse still exist. I also noticed even though you paraphrased my points you didn’t actually answer my question. Instead you tried to claim that no one is perfect which has nothing to do with the argument. No one in his party is perfect but you know what they’re not? Traitors. So why should he trust Misha specifically when his other party members haven’t betrayed him at all. Seriously, I like the exchange we’re having here as it was engaging and overall good faith. If you’d like to see what I mean about purely emotional and bad faith arguments then look at the 2 exchanges between Ashlen and I on chapter 589. She’s the queen of emotional appeals and bad faith. You can compare that shameful performance to yours and see how different it is. The last thing I’ll say is to keep yourself grounded in good faith, a good practice is to write out how to defeat your own position. I’ve told you several times how to beat my arguments and change my mind (as I’m always open to it,) so try to figure out exactly what it takes for you. Also i forgot to mention, The trolley problem isn't a real problem, it's a utilitarian exercise based off of a false premise. Utilitarianism and relativism are both based off of arbitrary meanings that rely on smuggled in assumptions to even exist. Relativism is a straight contradiction so it's plain impossible but utilitarianism is right behind it as it inevitably leads to genocide of all opposing thought in order to succeed. Neither survive scrutiny even within their own frameworks and collapse when asking for clarification. Avoid both of those frameworks in the future if you want to make valid arguments let alone sound ones.
Actually, i’m getting my timeline jumbled. He questioned her with Misaligned Trust after the final Ghost Busters chapter. So all Baekho knows is that Bjorn knows about the stone, not the spying. Maybe they can play this to their advantage.
Well we got to remember that Misha and bjorn had a sit down about everything, she betrayed the party not bjorn and join baekho after he basically threatened her mixed with honey words to join her after he found out somehow that she was a ice warrior dealer, she did it to get the revive stone, that clear detail, we all understood that and found out later that it would erase all of bjorn memories if used, glad it never happen but ultimately she was naive and grieving to the point of not eating and just wanting to die that made her make a bad choice overall.
Funny how he tried to escape this topic by avoiding home, only to get it full force at the meeting.Bjorn is in full avoidance mode. I don’t think he initially conceptualized what the fairy Lagcian meant by don’t make her cry. Fairy meant, make an honest woman out of her, while Bjorn meant, i’ll keep her safe and content. For a smart guy, he can really be a dunce at times. This is why Amelia and Raven have to hit him ever so often
Unlock with Patreon
WOW. Amelia was right there is gonna be a blood bath, but in the comment section 😂😂😂 they just can’t stop simping and honestly I would go for the harem kind way it’s enjoyable how is building it up. It’s like the second coming of gluttony but in the additional chapter was only implied and explained how it ended up in a harem like in order to not disrupt the history wise and the haters in a way.
And the lion has become the cub…
Hello, hope you don’t mind me asking. Is there any particular reason for not reading this novel on wattpad? Did any of you tried?
He could marry all 3. Jesus, what a power house politically he’d be if that happened. if he also got Ragna, he’d then be the chancellor’s son in law too. Any attractive dwarves?
The only thing gayer than a harem is a beta pulling a will they won’t they on a harems worth of women.
Uh, what a boring chapter… oh well, you can't always have amazing chapters I guess…
This gossip was not the meeting I was looking for.
They will likely call him greedy for not choosing a single partner and keeping his options open to having multiple partners. Then again, dragon mentioned he should have 3 kids by now and here we have 3 representatives offering/ fighting for daughters to be bedded by Bjorn.
Side note, I just noticed the very small notification bell top right of the comment section that shows me your guys reply’s to my comments. I will try to follow up better that I know of its existence lol.
i kinda feel bad for him but at the same time we need this cause this guy is dragging it im not one for harem i would rather him just be with aynar because shes best girl for me what she went through in the dread fear cave and more reinforced this for me but ill just say lets go harem route because i like the wizard too
Firstly, I’m going to reiterate that I’m not heated at all. As I said before, reading tone from a post is difficult as it doesn’t translate correctly. I’m actually really enjoying the exchange as I like seeing people thought processes play out even when reaching a different conclusion, especially when it’s done in good faith which you are. I don’t care what conclusion you reach, more how you arrive at the conclusion (which I’ll explain later.) Remember, that I told you my arguments are strictly truth/logic based. That means my arguments will never take into account comfort in place of truth, no matter what that truth is. It also means I mean exactly what I say with the words that I use with dictionary definitions in mind.So let’s get to what I’m seeing your problem is now when you’re constructing your arguments. You’re having an issue with ‘is vs ought’ which means descriptive vs prescriptive. My ‘is’ is that Misha is definitionally a traitor with the logical entailment being that she ‘ought’ not to be as trusted as much as non-traitors. That’s it. In order for you to argue against it logically, you have to: 1.Accept the ‘is’ (she is definitionally a traitor) but disagree with the ‘ought’ (but she should still be trusted as much as non-traitors.) 2. Deny the ‘is’ (she is not definitionally a traitor) by replacing the ‘is’ with your own then bridging it to your ‘ought’ claim. We literally can’t have an argument until you either accept or reject the description ‘is’ claim. So let’s take your blackmail example now under this lens. ‘Is’ it true that the wife betrayed the husband? Definitionally yes. You’re trying to justify it not to deny the ‘is’ but to mitigate my prescription or ‘ought.’ You also unknowingly made another is claim that reinforces my ‘ought’ which is the wife values her secret over loyalty to her husband. That’s my point. The husband shouldn’t trust this wife as much as a wife that doesn’t betray him right? This is the ‘ought’ you need to directly contend with. Same as with Misha.The reason I said your loyalty standard is your most egregious argument (meaning outstandingly/shockingly bad) is because you’ve made the meaning of a word arbitrary. To know what loyalty means you need to know what loyal mean. Loyal – giving or showing firm and constant support or allegiance to a person or institution. Keywords are constant and firm. The moment you make loyalty conditional based off of anyone’s own interpretation, you’ve made ‘loyalty’ meaningless. You’re actually defending self-preservation disguised as loyalty which is self-serving. So loyalty actually is simple it’s literally black and white. Loyalty is definitionally binary, either you are or you aren’t. You’re making it more complicated because you don’t understand this. This is why I question your motives here. You’ve made an untenable position. Are you actually trying to use logic here to arrive at a conclusion or choosing comfort over truth?
That’s just a baseless assertion though. The reason I quoted you was to highlight exactly what you need to provide evidence for in order to create a foundation to bridge it to your argument. You don’t have an argument until you can do that, otherwise it’s just an opinion. This means someone can just say, “Nu uhh” and it would be just as valid as what you’re saying. What I’m trying to tell you is even if you find evidence here for your position, you’d still be facing an uphill battle because you’d have to reconcile why she didn’t come forward in those 100 chapters willingly. The hardest hitting evidence against your case is that if you’re right and she realized at some point that Bjorn had the capability to defend against Baekho, then she would have told him before she was forced to. This means the logical entailment is that your assumption isn’t the reason for her not to tell him. No matter what justification you come up with you have to reconcile it with the fact she only stepped forward when interrogated, so your reason must explain that as well. Otherwise, my position, that she only confessed because of the interrogation, stands.
That’s not right. She’s a known traitor that has shown disloyalty to Bjorn (regardless of the reason even if we assume it’s justified) which means she’s not guaranteed to betray him again but more likely to do so than the other party members. That’s purely a logical entailment. If you see person A has a history of lying. Then person A is a liar. Tell person B to be cautious about person A because they lie. Does that not make sense? Isn’t this likelier to happen if the original conditions for Misha’s excuse still exist. I also noticed even though you paraphrased my points you didn’t actually answer my question. Instead you tried to claim that no one is perfect which has nothing to do with the argument. No one in his party is perfect but you know what they’re not? Traitors. So why should he trust Misha specifically when his other party members haven’t betrayed him at all. Seriously, I like the exchange we’re having here as it was engaging and overall good faith. If you’d like to see what I mean about purely emotional and bad faith arguments then look at the 2 exchanges between Ashlen and I on chapter 589. She’s the queen of emotional appeals and bad faith. You can compare that shameful performance to yours and see how different it is. The last thing I’ll say is to keep yourself grounded in good faith, a good practice is to write out how to defeat your own position. I’ve told you several times how to beat my arguments and change my mind (as I’m always open to it,) so try to figure out exactly what it takes for you. Also i forgot to mention, The trolley problem isn't a real problem, it's a utilitarian exercise based off of a false premise. Utilitarianism and relativism are both based off of arbitrary meanings that rely on smuggled in assumptions to even exist. Relativism is a straight contradiction so it's plain impossible but utilitarianism is right behind it as it inevitably leads to genocide of all opposing thought in order to succeed. Neither survive scrutiny even within their own frameworks and collapse when asking for clarification. Avoid both of those frameworks in the future if you want to make valid arguments let alone sound ones.
Bjorn should have avoided this meeting at all costs…