Would you agree with the statement "you can't claim to be strong if you don't save the weak?"

>you can't claim
>can't
No, it is obviously possible to *claim* whatever you want. Sometimes you might even believe it.

As for whether I agree with the statement itself, also no. When you say that, it sounds like you're a sore loser scrub making up arbitrary retroactive rules to claim your defeat didn't really count, because your opponent wasn't playing exactly the way you like to play.

Strength is strength, it doesn't require any particular moral stance to exist. Otherwise you'e using the word "strong" in a misleading metaphorical sense.

Also, I see no mention of traditional games in your post.

I've always preferred the angle where the hero doesn't just protect the weak, but uplifts them so that they might one day fight their own battles. That way it's self-perpetuating. Each hero just needs to inspire enough sub-heroes to free up his schedule for fighting the big bads directly.

It's not about being submissive to the less powerful, or wiping their ass for them, it's about stepping up to protect them from things they can't handle themselves. It's using the power you possess, to ensure the safety of those in danger, usually by someone else with power threatening them.

Best social Darwinist antagonist
>Believe whole heartedly in "survival of the fittest"
>Considers himself one of the weak
>Hates cruelty, and those who abuse their power, but considers compassion to be a weakness
>Wants to become powerful enough to remake the world in a way where the weak will never be abused again

>usually by someone else with power threatening them
If those people threatening them 1. are strong, and 2. don't help the weak, that answers OP.

You don't need to be strong if you have enough speed to break through everything.

youtube.com/watch?v=uca1dM93eXI

Its an alignment based question that could help people to not roleplay lawful stupid.

I don't agree with this statement but I gave it some thought and there's a certain take of it I like.

Strength is always relative, so someone can only validate that they're strong at all through those weaker than them. I mean, it's an easy enough solution that standing over the weak by whatever setting appropriate standard is proof enough of being strong, but I can see a philosophy where saving the weak is a better testament of power.

It's very reasonable to come up with scenarios where a weak person can overcome a strong person in any measure, but fairly difficult to come up with a scenario where a weaker person can ever save someone who is "stronger" than them in regards to a particular metric.

With this in mind, I could come to understand the statement in OP. Saving someone makes you stronger than them in some way if just for the moment, and in saving those weaker than you, you continually validate your strength.

You can claim to be strong simply by being strong. Its not edgy to claim that.

Saying that being Strong is a different thing from being Benevolent doesn't take away the benefits of benevolence. It may even be, that benevolence may of itself increase your strength [strength in numbers, etc, etc]

But they aren't the same thing. Villains can be strong. Jerks can be strong. This is the same bullshit where people try to say "Real Men [TM] are nice to women" or "Real Men [TM] look out for their families" or "Real Men [TM] are Christian/Hindu/My Philosophy"

People try and duck-tape unrelated concepts together, like Strength and Benevolence, or Masculinity and Morality because they want the people who exhibit the amoral qualities to also exhibit the moralistic qualities. Its a muddling of concepts, and an intentional muddling.

This. It's the sort of shit I'd expect to hear in support of communism. Strength is amoral, it has nothing to do with whether or not you help the weak.

One could easily argue that by doing that, you take away their opportunity to uplift themselves, independent of outside help.

Nobody is obligated to help others. To do so may be noble and just, but to attempt to ridicule those who refuse to only betrays the self-entitlement of the accuser.
Refer to this user

No. I think it's intellectually lazy pseudo-philosophy that attempts to connect two unrelated ideas in a way that sounds good but is ultimately content-free, and I've had enough bumper sticker philosophizing in my games for a lifetime.

If you want a true statement, try "you can't save the weak unless you're stronger than what's attacking them," but that would put the onus of becoming strong and taking action on the would-be knight instead of being content to claim the objective strength of others doesn't count on purely moral grounds.

How about this one, Veeky Forums.

"The first and paramount good is knowledge."

"Strength fed me better than knowledge."

"Good is not always necessary, and what is necessary is not always good"

Unless we're talking about formative weakness (ie children), it is the moral imperative of the strong to cull the weak for the good of the whole. Anything less is a path to stagnation and degeneracy.

But knowledge equals power and power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely so all omniscient beings are evil.

>Would you agree with the statement "you can't claim to be strong if you don't save the weak?"
No.
I subscribe more to this philosophy

>knowledge equals power
>power corrupts

I wonder if absolute power corrupts absolutely is another saying that people have forgotten the important half of, like "Curiosity killed the cat", "money is the root of all evil" and "blood is thicker than water"

I don't know what you mean by the first three, but isn't the origin of "blood is thicker than water" meant to reference the blood of battle (camaraderie and friendship) being stronger than the amniotic water of birth (family)?

On this day Veeky Forums forgot its Heroes.

truly hope rides alone.

I know this is thread is meant as fun and you're probably not sincere but this logic is so common among school shooters I'm a little nervous reading this.

You've watched too much anime. Strength is not purely what your big brother stand-in said last week.

Besides, by "saving" the weak you only weaken them further, You steal their trials and tribulations, becoming stronger yourself at their expense

If you do not protect the weak you lack strength of Character. If you lack Jesu's love, the binding force of all things, then you are nothing.

Fear God alone; he is the only one who can kill you forever!

>muh nature
>muh darwinism
Fuck that shit; it's the moral duty of man to improve himself, in the individual, collective, and gestalt senses, but it is also the moral duty to do so rationally and willfully, rather than trusting in blind processes.

TL;DR: Build better people and take care of the ones who are alive, don't treat man like livestock and breed him.

God is a cruel, capricious bastard of an inhuman intelligence. Man shall build towers from his bones, as reparations for the fall of babel.

>saving someone only weakens them further

This is hot shit. if someone is utterly incapable of changing their situation, "weak" as it were, then saving them does nothing to weaken them further.

In fact, it may even strengthen them going forward because of their view of their "Savior" acting as a positive role model, which can act as a rather good motivator.

morals are a spook and I'm stealing that line.

Not everyone gets the benefit of facing progressively more difficult trials that are appropriate enough for them to handle. Some face overwhelming and impossible odds at parts of their lives and on their own they will surely fail. In these situations, being saved means the difference between the end and a possible future.

Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
The blood of covenant is thicker than the water of the womb.
Radix malorum est cupiditas -- The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

All far different meanings than their modern counterparts
Veeky Forums hasn't forgotten its heroes. OP is just an idiot. Evil is strong, that's why the heroes must be Strong to oppose it. Strength exists irrespective of morality, it's merely a tool. A tool many use for evil, which is why we desire heroes to use that tool for good.

Which one, user?

Save a man and the next time things turn to shit does he save himself, or remember his saviour and wait. Hoping to be saved again? Remove the argument form anime and rpg tropes, people given an easy out will wait for it again.

Besides, how do you gain the strength to overcome your trials tomorrow if you're saved from them today?

not him but I liked, Man shall build towers from his bones,etc,etc

I'm behind the thread curve, but your line about god. I will tweak it a smidge and use it in rp. I like it

What part of "The actions of the savior can motivate the saved" did you not understand?

You most certainly can claim to.

For vast majority of people in first world countries a life threatening situation brought about by another person and not themselves only comes up once if at all, so "next time" isn't much of a concern.

Saving them once is all that is required.

Both "strong" and "weak" are heavily loaded words; it's never quite so simple.

Glad to be of service, anons.

>and so the sons of adam. United by hatred brought low the high heavens
>cast the creator from its throne and slew it upon the earth
>and now, with each hollow dawn the proud sons of man build their towers higher
>a final spite for lost, forgotten babel

In caring for the man of the present you sacrifice the men of the future. You lack the strength to hear suffering, so you choke those whose suffering you will never hear. And yet you have the gall to act superior.

Would play a game in.

>anthropodeistic faction obsessed with unifying man and slaying (the) God(s)
>within the faction, motivations vary from seething rage at the aggression against man in ages past for seeking apotheosis, to rational desire to solidify man's self-determination

There are many types of strength, and many ways of using it. Arguing that one doesn't count is arbitrary and pointless.

One can be strong of body but weak of moral character, just as one can be weak of body but possess strong character. However, because it is harder to be a good person than to become powerful, those who are both must take responsibility for the weak so that evil does not overrun and trample good.

In this way, those who are weak now may have the chance to flourish and reach their full potential, so that they may protect and guide the weak in turn. Even the most powerful man in the world was once no more than a babe at his mother's breast.

Truly, it must be a sad existence to grasp at power for yourself and no other. What use is a pile of gold to a dead man? Will a corpse's blade serve him in his endeavors? Does a pile of rot and decay desire the warmth of the hearth and the shelter of his own home? But that gold can feed a wife and child, that blade can aid him in defending those who he cherishes, and that home and hearth can warm and house his family and child.

Through this, a man can lead a good life.

Man holds the power to care for both his weak and strong, weak and strong in varying capacities each, and in doing so he may yet design his next iteration.

Surrendering the progress of man to blind, natural processes is a surrender to nature itself.

I can fabricate a few opinions:
>Survival of the fittest
Nature is a world of innovation and freedom. Shackling the strong to make them equal to the weak stagnates evolutionary innovation and restricts adaptive freedom. Nature is unfair, but is constraining the living to mortal laws fair? Is restraining one's wild freedom, and therefore themselves, fair? Bringing mortal order to an evolving world is a mockery of the natural order. Anything that is weak was never meant to proliferate.
That doesn't mean active efforts should be taken to cull the weak. The weak exist because you or nature allows them to. If they were truly weak, they were already doomed to not pass on.

>We're a social species.
Humans seldom leave one of their own behind. They rely on their intelligence and interdependence to survive. The weak usually either have the talent or the work ethic to contribute to the clan. The strong exist to inspire the weak, and the weak exist to follow and support the strong. One day the weak will find strength and become the strong.

>Ubermensch
The weak exist because they aren't strong yet. We will use our intellect to iron out our flaws, improve our strengths, and accumulate new abilities. Nature is to be transcended, whether there is one or many ways of doing so.
Those who refuse to improve will fade away, leaving only those who strive for perfection.

>Spook
The strong and the weak are terms to describe who is more valuable to exploit or more dangerous to deal with. Find your strengths to harness and your weaknesses to deal with. Find the strengths of others to utilize and go after their weaknesses to manipulate them.

So do not progress blindly. Design the strong. But do not suffer the weak to live. Every ounce of power given to the one is taken from the other.

I mean, Social Darwinism is bullshit if anything because you're always going to NEED people at the bottom to do the stuff the people at the top can't do or don't know how to do.

I've never saw the point in disrespecting the people at the bottom -I mean, especially because I'm not far from it- if only on the basis that if they didn't do what they did.. who would??

I'm not going to say the "Strong should protect the weak" just 'because it's the right thing to do', but I don't think it's too unreasonable to say, "The strong protect the weak, so the weak can support the strong."

Like, who's gonna make your cheeseburgers if everyone is an unsympathetic psycopathic super human?

I dunno.
It seems the only people who constantly undermine or disrespect the 'weak' don't seem to understand how much they carry the rest of the system and how comfortable they make the rest of our lives.

The weak will die in time, there is no reason to be cruel or cold. Without compassion, what would man be save for another incarnation of mindless nature?

Main city of Zion, or "New Babylon" is the first success. A thriving metropilous build on the literal bones of a god. The rivers run red with divine blood and for miles the murder-sanctified earth blooms with heady life

>Like, who's gonna make your cheeseburgers if everyone is an unsympathetic psycopathic super human
That's why the first step in any self-sustaining system is for the strong to cripple the ability of the weak to have any recourse. Indebt them, bind them with legal contracts, destroy any form of worker organization or union in order to curtail worker's rights, do whatever, as long as it means that you don't have to worry about Mr and Mrs Poorfag suddenly deciding that they won't make cheeseburgers until you treat them better.

Because no matter how good they have it, employees will always think they deserve something better.

This. I've got no problem with the 'strong' protecting the 'weak' for whatever reason they care to have, and the 'weak' accepting that help or not for their own reasons. But having it be mandated, expected even, and with this smug sense of entitlement to boot is fucking crazy to me. It's why I called it a dominant-bottom power fantasy here

>Like, who's gonna make your cheeseburgers if everyone is an unsympathetic psycopathic super human?
Robots; when you've gotten to the point where humanity is comprised solely of posthuman ubermenschen, genetically engineered non-sapient servitor species or post-scarcity robotics can't be far behind.

The Dream

>mankind eventual gets to space with magic, tech, or magitek
>turns out there's a lot, lot more gods than the ones just on Earth
>they make excellent seeds for terraforming worlds, though
>humans begin actually hunting gods specifically for this purpose
>cue war between humanity, most of the local godhood, and other species who DON'T have a massive bone to pick with the local deities

So now the question is, what does the blood of a god to do the surroundings? does the wildlife transform into aslanish superinteligent beasts of supernatural majesty? or the other end of the spectrum and become mutated husks?

The fact that you would rather weak first world chaff continue being weak disgusts me.

My personal views on what constitute true strength are pretty damn Kamen Rider, but I mean, it gets kinda subjective pretty quick.

Godblood, in its most primal state, is supermatter receptive to the will of sapients. It is literally magic, and affects reality based on thought. Man wills the bloodsoaked land to become plentiful and edenic, and so it becomes.

All the gods are, in fact, are sufficiently large clusters of this material that have become self-sapient from the gestalt consciousness of local mortals. They have their own wills and are able to use their own essence to manipulate reality to some degree, but the worship of other sapients magnifies their power. Due to the fundamental difference between "natural", mortal sapience and "supernatural" sapience, Gods cannot worship each other.

Gods without worshippers have limited control over reality, appearing as nothing more than unnaturally powerful mortals.
Gods with sufficiently many worshippers approach creator-deity levels of power within some given area.

"No one deserves to die" is a motto I can get behind, seeing as we're talking about defending the weak.I just worry that I'm too selfish to be self-sacrificing.

Oh you can definitely claim to be strong. But you can't claim to be a hero. And depending on how many opportunities to help people at little to no cost you ignore, you may not even be right to call yourself a good person.

There's certainly value to "saving" the weak in the sense of "ensure they're able to continue serving their function like the good little cattle they are", but is it a requirement? Fuck no.

Does your knowledge of heroes not extend to stories told before the twenty first century?

I don't think we're talking about heroes in the literary sense here. Yeah, you can be the protagonist or do crazy superhuman shit, but that makes you a different sort of hero.

Ultimately I think a hero (in the modern sense) cannot be worthy of that qualification if he goes out of his way to avoid helping the weak. The less it would have cost him, the less justifiable it is.

So first man spreads a crusade-tier creed of unbelief backed up by proof that the divine are both mortal- in the strictest "they can die" sense and in no way necessary to the workings of creation.

Next comes the building. The human scale is woefully lacking. When we where but scattered nations. United we forge mighty chains of cold iron and profane steel to launch from mighty engines of war.

Once dragged from their cradle the gods perish quickly. Used only to warring amid each other they dismiss the fury of man until their lifeblood begins to flow.

No one deserves anything. Everyone is going to die. If you can improve the lives of some by moving that date forward for others, so be it.

Immortality is hypothetically feasible.

No. Strength and morality are not even connected, let alone strength and heroism.

No. Strength, especially in fantasy settings, often boils down to the individual strength, even though we could argue that strength comes in a lot of different forms (spiritual strength, physical strength, "social" strength, etc).

Being strong is unrelated to the dimension of right and wrong, and as other anons already said, you can be strong even though you don't care about the weak.

Strength is merely a capacity, a potential to accomplish a given goal or task, and therefore it'only a mean to an end

Nobody on this Earth is weak anymore.

You can make bullshit claims like that, but humanity has suffered on what is effectively a death world, mercilessly trying to kill them, providing barely edible food, and so on and so forth.

You are the last in a long generational line of humans who have spent their lives bending and twisting the world to their will.

"Weak" people are merely those who have grown temporarily soft in this current life of luxury: And more matters than simply raw physical strength.

It is why eugenics, whenever it is tried, always backfires and fails: Because humanity and survival are more complex than they seem.

What about all the poors who are subject to the actions of their government or other countries'
Their capacity to act is limited by their lack of means, after all.
Or maybe you were not talking on a global scale and only in 1st world societies ?

Global. We have wheat, potatoes, chickens. Dire wolves and saber tooth cats are extinct. Many huge sections of the planet have been planoformed instead of being filled with nothing but poisonous, twisted weeds.

Yes, there are definitely places that are screwed, trashy or toxic hellholes, by foolishness or simple nature. Pictures abound. But in terms of landmass and where people live, the numbers speak for themselves.

True, humanity is richer than it has ever been, but for how long ?
Resources won't last, climate change could affect our capacity to produce our food in the near future, and soon even diseases we thought disappeared could make a come back thanks to our overuse of antibiotics.
There are definitely difficulties we need to overcome, difficulties that have been proven capable to destroy entire societies in the past

>Build better people
And yet genetic improvement of man remains illegal.

who's this semen demon

These are the same problems as the past, recycled and with a fresh chrome on it, with more tools and more information available.

Entropy may always win. But not today. Go out and do.

>not today
We never know

>Nobody on this Earth is weak anymore.
>the average male has never seen real danger and is unarmed, has a worthless or non-existent education, and can't even fucking bench 100 pounds

You don't have to be eaten by dire wolves to be hilariously weak and vulnerable when put in any dangerous situation, be it taken advantage of by a more powerful human, eaten by animals that aren't extinct, or dying of exposure because you went in the woods without knowing how to survive like a chucklefuck.

Eugenics hasn't always failed. The Chinese guy an NBA player out of it. Americans got all their sports heroes out of it.

What are you talking about?

>OH man, that guys getting beaten by a bunch of thugs on the street, I could probably go over there and save him, but you know what, I wont, he needs to overcome his own trials of being mugged by a gang of people, I am sure he would appreciate this sentiment

It's not about anime or RPG tropes, it's logic. If someone is in need, and you have the means, and the capability of reaching out and helping them, and you don't, what good are you? What have you done to contribute besides standing by like another pedestrian and watching someone being beaten down (literally or metaphorically) Saying "oh if I save him now he won't get stronger on his own and will just wait for me to save him again" is a load of bullshit to try and excuse yourself from going out of your way to help someone. Don't try and avoid the responsibility of helping someone in need and then take the moral high ground.

I think it's the strong's duty to serve the weak.

But i also think there are many different 'strengths' and 'weaknesses' that aren't just physical or mental, so that servitude shifts depending on the situation and what's needed.

So really i believe that 'if you can solve the problem, and the other person can't and needs help, it's you duty to help'

A good example of this idea is shown in that most places (most) will punish a bystander who does nothing while watching a crime take place (accessory to the act).

A lot of people take offence to this and get uppity about being told they should behave better, but i call them lazy and weak.because that's what they are.

This. It's not even about serving or being "submissive" It's about being a decent human being and lending someone a hand when they need it.

>he clings to the flesh
Pitiful

Organic materials are better than inorganic materials in a lot of ways, though. Yeah, they can't survive extreme conditions, but organics can self-diagnose and self-repair automatically and evolve new functions without the need for outside tools.
I mean, if you want and capable of completel control of the functioning of the organism, then, yeah, inorganics are better. But organic shit does so many processes automatically that we don't even think about. Don't even get me started on how our immune system works, for example.

fill in the blank.

____________, SON

You realize you will have to make as many breeds of nanomachines as there are primitive cycles in our organism? Pic very related, and that's just the very basics of how the human organism works.

Yeah, everyone knows you're not a man unless you have a big dick, no matter how strong you are.

So this is the miracle of life ?

If you're trying to replicate a human perfectly, sure.

Last I checked, viruses don't really work on things without DNA. Not to mention the fact that non-cellular and/or inorganic material is unpalatable to most bacterium. That pretty much cuts out the need for a traditional immune system.

Hell, we can get rid of pretty much every organ or system except for the brain, and replace them with reduced versions for the sake of stimulus. We don't need to digest food, merely taste it, etc etc.

I'm also fairly positive that inorganic materials of sufficient complexity can evolve far faster (and far more directed) than natural DNA.

>Besides, by "saving" the weak you only weaken them further, You steal their trials and tribulations, becoming stronger yourself at their expense
Holy shit, so much this. Helping when asked? Sure. Butting in with "well-intentioned" "help" is a good way to get bitter because the person you "helped" would now hate you for fucking up their situation.

Nanomachines are SF-rebranded healing spells and fireballs. At best, nanites will end up mimicking what organic cells do, and be made from fairly similar materials, so why not just splice new specialized cells in the first place. It's not like you can't use a tiny radio beacon to give them simple instructions and tell them to die when they're done.

A computer is the ultimate medium for consciousness as far as we can envision right now, and I can see a sort of smart nanite-infused 'active metal' as a self-maintaining solution for situation where you need extreme durability under stress, but organics are simply the most optimal answer to your daily wear and tear. You're better off using both as appropriate instead of getting into wars over who is being less inefficient for the sake of ideology.

>Last I checked, viruses don't really work on things without DNA
>That pretty much cuts out the need for a traditional immune system.

>he isn't aware of bacterial anaerobic corrosion and a thousand other ways you can fuck up inorganic materials

>Hell, we can get rid of pretty much every organ or system except for the brain, and replace them with reduced versions for the sake of stimulus. We don't need to digest food, merely taste it, etc etc.
Doesn't mean that it will be easy to create a sustainable metabolic cycle (I'm not sure the term really applies to inorganics, but you get what I'm trying to say) in inorganic materials.
And don't even get me started on how inorganic materials (especially shit like semicondictors) are extremely susceptible to radiation and have virtually no defense mechanism against it beyond "let's hide it behind a thick layer of metal". I mean, at least human organism can struggle and isolate the radiation-affected portions without significant reduction to productivity.