Vinland Saga - Ch. 214 - Thousand Year Voyage Part 23

[nonexistent696969]

everything looks like in vain....

 

[LordDark97]

Ivar going “I’m a leader, I have to protect my people from violence”

MY BROTHER IN CHRIST YOU CAUSED THE VIOLENCE

nope he cutted the hand of the shaman, the shaman is behind everything

 

[Volphied]

nope he cutted the hand of the shaman, the shaman is behind everything

I guess you missed the part where the shaman was laughing after Ivar took the bait?

Ivar was a fool, and he died like a fool too.

 

[Grimmycoffee]

Resources will always be finite and killing someone to take their stuff will always be profitable if you can get away with it.

There's the assumptions that said war is predictable in matters of who won and lost, won't cost more resources than they get, and can't be obtained in any other way than war.

 

[Grimmycoffee]

I guess you missed the part where the shaman was laughing after Ivar took the bait?

Ivar was a fool, and he died like a fool too.

We have a good idea on who Thorfinn is, but people can die when someone swing an axe at them.

Bringing the sword still breaks the rule, but I don't think Ivar is that much in the wrong there.

 

[NotSomeone]

So to paraphrase, you believe evil people are somehow incapable of saying true things? I know nothing of that character, but he's right. Resources will always be finite and killing someone to take their stuff will always be profitable if you can get away with it.

You need the rest of the Judge's philosophy for it to make sense. Holden believes that war is God because only through war and violence can a man become master of his own fate, law and misticism are therefore things created by weak man to protect their place in a world where the strong should rule.
This is boiling down his philosophy a lot, the character is way, way more complicated than that, the whole book is.

Suffice to say the Judge is wrong, men should be more than beasts and bloodletting is not the only way to solve a conflict or to make a place for youself in the world.

But that's what the Judge does through the book: He tells you half-truths so you end up believing in his lies, then you see youself doing what he wants you to do, and by bending the knee to his will you validify his philosophy of power and selfishness above all else.

And even if animals are violent, cruel and egoistic, why should we be the same? Being natural does not mean being good or correct. Somehow, be it God or chance, we ended up with the ability to abstract information we previously interpreted, that gives us agency to do better than savagery.

 

[TheMagnificentSteinerr]

Fantastic chapter, Ivar's last stand was awesome. Lot of the readers hated him but I liked his character a lot, especially this chapter. Maybe even the stand out of the arc thus far.

i agree

 

[husse]

bro god did (the nords are finally got a chance).

 

[dsfargeg]

There's the assumptions that said war is predictable in matters of who won and lost, won't cost more resources than they get, and can't be obtained in any other way than war.

Oh, no, not at all. That's part of what I meant by "getting away with it." If I try to steal your lunch money and you kill or wound me or I wind up in jail, I certainly didn't get away with it. I paid a heavier cost for it than I would have benefited from it. If victory leads to a substantial reward and it seems like there's going to be no costs, humans almost always do it and afterwards look for reasons to call themselves the good guy.

Basically, you are completely correct, we both agree on this, and I apologize for being a little unclear.

And even if animals are violent, cruel and egoistic, why should we be the same?

"Should."

This is the key word. I do not suggest that we "should" be. You are ascribing words and motivations that I did not say and do not have. The unfortunate reality of the human condition is that we will be and that there are no means of escaping that. The laws behind the universe dictate that war will be, not that it is a thing to strive for. Death, too, is something that will be, whether peacefully of old age or violent and unexpectedly. This does not mean that a human should seek to die. It means a human should strive to do what they can before they die.

Acknowledging that we are stuck with things like war, death and sickness isn't supporting them or saying that they should be. Like stone, they are. They won't go away. You have to accept reality and plan around it if you want to get anything done.

That's what was wrong with Thorfinn's plan. He refused to accept reality and it had disastrous results. War and the threat of war will always be with you, the best you can hope for is making it so costly for the other side they choose not to try. He had half an idea with the integration stuff, but he forgot you need to be able to punish groups that won't play nice. You need the carrot AND the stick.

 

[dsfargeg]

The level of astounding patronizing and innate condescension shows that you have no attempt to even have civil discourse. I didn't say violence wasn't in our genes, I said WAR. We do NOT need to propose the necessities of fueling and perpetuation that we are constantly needing in resources and without thought and consideration. There are plenty of animals that kill on an entire group opposed to them, but we are not animals. We think, feel, understand, and discuss, but you obviously have no intention other than incredible amount of patronizing.

What is pretty interesting is how unbelievably small minded and red pill you are. The leader should ALWAYS seek discourse through discussion prior to seeking reparation or restitution, and not selfishly seeking their own preferences and desires. Your intent to disprove and disrespect me shows that you just flew off the handle with the intent of showing off your own narrow and shallow readings. You've written a book? I doubt anyone has ever read and concurred with you, so please keep your acerbic and destructive criticism to yourself. Do I believe our leaders are our friends? Never, especially nowadays, where everyone is desperately seeking social media clout and justification for their own agendas.

Your desire to lock humans into a very specific catagory itself shows how locked into your beliefs you are, and will absolutely intend to argue this out to the point of senselessness. Do you think that humans have to follow the primal instincts, without any recourse or reconsideration? If you do, you must be a very sad and pitiful primate. Do you think the leaders who have no idea what they're doing, and foolishly plunge an entire nation into war for resources aren't incompetent? Do you think that international treaties that support neighboring countries is for the sole intent to take resources from the countries themselves? Do you have no basic understanding of economy?

You should probably wipe the butthurt tears from your eyes long enough to actually read what I posted, because I addressed several of your counterpoints within the post itself. Unless you plan to redefine war as something other than an organized violent conflict between two or more groups of individuals working together, war is absolutely in the genes of several species including humans.

Also, I never claimed to have written a book? I recommended a book that helps people understand human psychology better so they can develop a better understanding of the factors that lead to war.

The leader should ALWAYS seek discourse through discussion prior to seeking reparation or restitution, and not selfishly seeking their own preferences and desires.

You assert this, but do not support this. Why should they? From a survival perspective, there's plenty of situations where you should not do that. There's some where it's advisable, sure, but honestly signaling you're upset with someone can easily lead to them coming down with overwhelming force and wiping you out. For guerilla groups engaging in asymmetric warfare you're suggesting suicide. I can only imagine you hold this belief so dogmatically because you, personally, are terrified of violence and terrified of people willing to employ it. You should lift more. It's good for your mental health.

Do you think that humans have to follow the primal instincts, without any recourse or reconsideration?

This is something addressed by the book I recommended so there's not too much point in addressing it here, but to summarize it briefly: Primal instincts and the subconscious mind create the list of options a human can take. The conscious mind only acts to decide between which options are generated. Neurons fire to inhibit instincts, not to generate new ideas. The author I recommended has several books on this subject and goes into great detail about how this works.

Do you think that international treaties that support neighboring countries is for the sole intent to take resources from the countries themselves? Do you have no basic understanding of economy?

Deeply ironic comment on so many levels. Let me turn this around on you: What do you think international treaties that support neighboring countries are for? Do you think the people making these treaties AREN'T acting in their own best interests?

 

[Grimmycoffee]

Oh, no, not at all. That's part of what I meant by "getting away with it." If I try to steal your lunch money and you kill or wound me or I wind up in jail, I certainly didn't get away with it. I paid a heavier cost for it than I would have benefited from it. If victory leads to a substantial reward and it seems like there's going to be no costs, humans almost always do it and afterwards look for reasons to call themselves the good guy.

Basically, you are completely correct, we both agree on this, and I apologize for being a little unclear.

I'm trying to say it's too big of an IF, too much of a gamble to justify a war with the excuse of "resources are finite".

War in general is costly, and even what seems like a quick war can led to something much longer and more destructive and there is no definitive way to prevent that.

If people truly are selfish, then pragmatically speaking, I believe this is dumb.

The unfortunate reality of the human condition is that we will be and that there are no means of escaping that.

A theory at best, falsely self-identified as fact.

The laws behind the universe dictate that war will be,--

What laws behind the universe are you even talking about.

War and the threat of war will always be with you, the best you can hope for is making it so costly for the other side they choose not to try.

Isn't there already a talk that start with the walls growing distrust in the manga? And I believe, the whole thing about the sword is that it's a really attractive killing tool either self-righteous people who think only they have the right to hold it or just want it for pure greed.
.
.
.

For guerilla groups engaging in asymmetric warfare you're suggesting suicide.

He said that discussion is first resort, right? What does a guerilla group, which implies a war already started, have to do with it?

I can only imagine you hold this belief so dogmatically because you, personally, are terrified of violence and terrified of people willing to employ it. You should lift more. It's good for your mental health.

You really should try to chill before spitting insults for no reason.
And are you saying people who are afraid of war should lift so they're not afraid of war anymore? Even if it's not war, even a thug who mugs you with just a knife is still scary even with 80s action hero body.

Deeply ironic comment on so many levels. Let me turn this around on you: What do you think international treaties that support neighboring countries are for? Do you think the people making these treaties AREN'T acting in their own best interests?

I'm not that guy so I can't tell for sure, but there is "-the sole intent to take resources from the countries themselves" in that line.

 

[dsfargeg]

I'm trying to say it's too big of an IF, too much of a gamble to justify a war with the excuse of "resources are finite".

War in general is costly, and even what seems like a quick war can led to something much longer and more destructive and there is no definitive way to prevent that.

If people truly are selfish, then pragmatically speaking, I believe this is dumb.

You can call it dumb, but there's countless historical examples (and even a few modern ones) that prove otherwise. Believing that people won't use violence for profit is delusional. This whole manga's about a group of people that are famous for raiding people. Do you want to pretend viking raids didn't happen?

A theory at best, falsely self-identified as fact.

What laws behind the universe are you even talking about.

Broadly, natural selection and thermodynamics. As I explained earlier, hurting others to take from them is advantageous when trying to reproduce and survive, so eliminating that behavior pattern can't happen. Even if it's pruned from a population it's going to come back. It's an easily observable truth.

Isn't there already a talk that start with the walls growing distrust in the manga? And I believe, the whole thing about the sword is that it's a really attractive killing tool either self-righteous people who think only they have the right to hold it or just want it for pure greed.

Sure, walls may have sewn distrust, but that's not quite what I'm talking about. If trying to wage war on the Nords would have obviously ended in a crushing defeat, and trying to live alongside the Nords led to a higher quality of life, the Lnu wouldn't have chosen war. Walls don't guarantee a crushing defeat. Being vastly outnumbered by people with better equipment would.

 

[NotSomeone]

Oh, no, not at all. That's part of what I meant by "getting away with it." If I try to steal your lunch money and you kill or wound me or I wind up in jail, I certainly didn't get away with it. I paid a heavier cost for it than I would have benefited from it. If victory leads to a substantial reward and it seems like there's going to be no costs, humans almost always do it and afterwards look for reasons to call themselves the good guy.

Basically, you are completely correct, we both agree on this, and I apologize for being a little unclear.

"Should."

This is the key word. I do not suggest that we "should" be. You are ascribing words and motivations that I did not say and do not have. The unfortunate reality of the human condition is that we will be and that there are no means of escaping that. The laws behind the universe dictate that war will be, not that it is a thing to strive for. Death, too, is something that will be, whether peacefully of old age or violent and unexpectedly. This does not mean that a human should seek to die. It means a human should strive to do what they can before they die.

Acknowledging that we are stuck with things like war, death and sickness isn't supporting them or saying that they should be. Like stone, they are. They won't go away. You have to accept reality and plan around it if you want to get anything done.

That's what was wrong with Thorfinn's plan. He refused to accept reality and it had disastrous results. War and the threat of war will always be with you, the best you can hope for is making it so costly for the other side they choose not to try. He had half an idea with the integration stuff, but he forgot you need to be able to punish groups that won't play nice. You need the carrot AND the stick.

I did not ascribe anything to you, I was breaking down Judge Holden's philosphy for you to better understand it before quoting him. And it seems like everything I did was waste my time.

 

[Zael]

Oh, no, not at all. That's part of what I meant by "getting away with it." If I try to steal your lunch money and you kill or wound me or I wind up in jail, I certainly didn't get away with it. I paid a heavier cost for it than I would have benefited from it. If victory leads to a substantial reward and it seems like there's going to be no costs, humans almost always do it and afterwards look for reasons to call themselves the good guy.

Basically, you are completely correct, we both agree on this, and I apologize for being a little unclear.

"Should."

This is the key word. I do not suggest that we "should" be. You are ascribing words and motivations that I did not say and do not have. The unfortunate reality of the human condition is that we will be and that there are no means of escaping that. The laws behind the universe dictate that war will be, not that it is a thing to strive for. Death, too, is something that will be, whether peacefully of old age or violent and unexpectedly. This does not mean that a human should seek to die. It means a human should strive to do what they can before they die.

Acknowledging that we are stuck with things like war, death and sickness isn't supporting them or saying that they should be. Like stone, they are. They won't go away. You have to accept reality and plan around it if you want to get anything done.

That's what was wrong with Thorfinn's plan. He refused to accept reality and it had disastrous results. War and the threat of war will always be with you, the best you can hope for is making it so costly for the other side they choose not to try. He had half an idea with the integration stuff, but he forgot you need to be able to punish groups that won't play nice. You need the carrot AND the stick.

May I introduce you to the concept of Imperative Hedonism and actually directly modifying such things that you hold as inevitable immutable truths of the Universe like the "Natural Selection" that you mentioned..?
https://www.hedweb.com/

 

[Grimmycoffee]

You can call it dumb, but there's countless historical examples (and even a few modern ones) that prove otherwise. Believing that people won't use violence for profit is delusional. This whole manga's about a group of people that are famous for raiding people. Do you want to pretend viking raids didn't happen?

I'm saying the justification on why you believe in that quote is too flawed, not that war never happen.

Broadly, natural selection and thermodynamics. As I explained earlier, hurting others to take from them is advantageous when trying to reproduce and survive, so eliminating that behavior pattern can't happen. Even if it's pruned from a population it's going to come back. It's an easily observable truth.

Where does thermodynamics come in play in this?
Again, hurting others and taking from them can easily went badly for themselves. People can't know for sure that a war would go well, and by then it would be too late.

Sure, walls may have sewn distrust, but that's not quite what I'm talking about. If trying to wage war on the Nords would have obviously ended in a crushing defeat, and trying to live alongside the Nords led to a higher quality of life, the Lnu wouldn't have chosen war. Walls don't guarantee a crushing defeat. Being vastly outnumbered by people with better equipment would.

That's just naive. Like playing a chess and expecting your opponent to do nothing.

 

[barioidl]

by ivar's logic, a true warrior is a dead warrior:
-don't need a sword
-avoid war, by being 6 feet under

 

[LordDark97]

I guess you missed the part where the shaman was laughing after Ivar took the bait?

Ivar was a fool, and he died like a fool too.

yep he was a fool but the point is even with someone else this mess would have happened

 

[dragging-balls-z]

Congrats Ivar you got what you wanted you dumb fuck