Sixth Candelbram - Voice

[firstofthefallen]

What is strength to you, or what it is to be strong?

Alternatively, who is it that has right to rulership, or to command? Do you agree with the sentiment that those who are strong are superior and thus have greater rights than those who are weak?

And if that is the case: may the weak become strong?

Comments

[Text]

[tohko_amano]

To me, being strong means I can help the people and things I care about any way I can without hurting others in the process.

As for who should rule..maybe the strong should help the weak get stronger as well and stand on equal ground!

[Text]

[firstofthefallen]

Is it truly strength if you are taught it?

To provide someone help at first is acceptable. But they must come to learn they are alone on all other things, in the end.

[Text]

[tohko_amano]

Sure! I don't see why the strength would change just because you had to learn and work towards it.

And people aren't all alone! Even if they think they are, they always have someone around.

[Text]

[lightofhumanity]

People have different strengths and weaknesses. I think a person is truly strong when they use their strengths in ways that can overcome their weaknesses. That is my opinion though.

As for who should rule..ideally, people should live equally, not lording over or commanding others.

[Text]

[firstofthefallen]

That's a practical way of viewing it.

This too would be ideal. However in the end people will inherently flock to someone to lead them. Who is the better leader: one who provides an example in their strength, or one who rules because that is all that he does?

NOT anon, wow!!!

[nodeviations]

Strength is refusing to die until you choose to. Survival.

Rulership is to those who have the perseverance to handle dealing with idiots.

And the weak can become strong if they actually desire it hard enough.

[firstofthefallen]

All of these I agree with.

In the end, however, it is rare that rulers are chosen, by their own accord or by the accord of others.

[scentofmakai]

There's the people who can dominate you physically who are 'strong', and there's the people who won't break if you put them in a place like here who are 'strong'. They're both decent definitions.

People who talk about rights to rulership are asking for a long argument that never goes anywhere. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a ruler or people on top, just that no matter how you pick who's in charge, the people who aren't are going to have some problems with them.

Of course they can.

[firstofthefallen]

They are. But would you say one is preferable to the other?

Ideally, there would be no ruler. In the end all would know where they stand among others. But it is the way of people, and of all creatures to have one to lead them. And thus we must decide what traits are most desirable to look for.

Why do you believe that?

Text

[divinitysoiled]

[You. Don't think she hasn't figured out it's you yet. But she feels like she has to answer this, so, text it is-]

Strength is living, no matter the cost. No matter who dies. No matter what you have to do to do it.

Text

[firstofthefallen]

And that is all?

[egotrigger]

Strength is less to do with physical strength and more to do with endurance and the willingness to do the right thing. Someone can be the strongest person in the world, win every battle... but if they don't have the ability to direct that strength for the good of all, then it's not real strength.

... I can't really speak to who has the right to rule, though.

[Not when he's been more or less following orders all of his life.]

I'd hope that those in charge are the ones that have everyone's best interests at heart, though.

[firstofthefallen]

It's a combination of all those. Physical, emotional, and mental.

To direct it for the good of all is pointless. It's a definition no one can provide as the rights of some will always be driven down and taken away no matter what you might do. Only a fool believes things can be done for the good of all.

voice;

[blackwitch]

They can become strong. But it doesn't happen often, weak people are weak for a reason, after all. [ Her grin is audible even in her tone. ] And for that same reason the strong are allowed to rule over them, of course! It's wa-y simple.

Voice

[firstofthefallen]

They are. But as you have said, they might become strong. In fact, I believe that most have the ability to do so. It's simply that people must be tested to become strong, and so few will openly test themselves. Thus it is left to disaster to test them.

And in the end there will always be those crushed down by the weight of disaster, rather than overcome it.

[puppy_lancer]

i guess it means to be able to kick lots of ass
and to face everything with courage
and to stand by your convictions and promises
even if it hurts you
but for the leadership thing it depends
people who become rulers learn to becomes strong sooner or later, right?
and i dunno about superiority, but i like to protect the weak

[firstofthefallen]

Quite a primal strength then. I can appreciate that a great deal. But it takes more than that. To stand by your convictions, I will admit, is a good companion to such.

They do. But all rulers are, inevitably, displaced by those stronger than them.

Why protect them?

[calculatedfire]

The physically strong often control the weak, but they need them in the end. If a warrior cannot grow his own food, or mine his own metal, he is useless without the weak who do those jobs for him.

They have no right to mistreat people.

[firstofthefallen]

You assume it is only the weak who might do those jobs. And, to a point, I suppose that is quite fair. The weak will always be with us, but there is also this: there will be strong who rise among the weak, and the weak will become stronger. Should we not build a society where the weak, too, are strong?

Define mistreatment.

[voice]

[bow_of_the_galadhrim]

Strength to me is being able to defend oneself and others. Not being ashamed to ask for help when one needs it, acknowledging that one needs it.

As for leading, it depends entirely on situations or how one was raised, how one place functions in comparison to another. My father has the right to rule Eryn Lasgalen, he's protect our people and borders for an entire Age and brought back as many of our people as he could after King Oropher's death.

[A pause and he nods to himself.]

Anyone can become strong.

[voice]

[firstofthefallen]

This I can accept. There is wisdom in seeking the aid of others at time. However, it can become folly, and weakness, when one relies on the fact that one may do this.

You say he has the right, but what gives him this right? His own strength? His birth? Fate?

[nonacquiescent]

There are different kinds of strength, physical strength is the one people put more weight in, but it's actually the lesser. Mental strength of any kind is far superior. Whether that's use of magic, intelligence or control over your emotions and all that is irrelevant because all are. Anyone can gain any sort of strength if they work hard enough, it can be difficult, but it's not at all impossible. The ones fit to rule are those who understand that, and who can be true leaders. A ruler should be admired by his subjects, beloved by them so his dreams become the dreams of the people, and the dreams of the people become his. Someone who can work hand-in-hand with his subjects while portraying his own strength to give them hope and trust in him. Someone who simply rules isn't fit for the job. They can't be selfsacrificing or the people will depend on them too much, and become dissatisfied. They can't isolate themselves as something of a living god to be feared. A true ruler knows how to create a medium of friend and command.

[firstofthefallen]

You're right. Anyone can gain any sort of strength. That is why the greatest strength is excellence in all of them.

Does admiration play that big a role in deciding who is fit to rule? Even tyrants have people who truly admire them because of the way they were brought up in their lives, or taught. A liar might win admiration by hiding his nature and adapting a facade.

That being said, I'm impressed. I agree a great deal with your idea of what would make a suitable rule.

[stalemates]

It's the natural way of things, those who are weak will be preyed upon by the strong. We've come a long way from those base instincts, so it's a little different now, we should try to help the weak become strong and help them survive, right? But if they can't do that, then it's only natural eventually they'll be trampled.

[firstofthefallen]

The way we've come is far shorter than most believe. But still we have come a ways.

I believe we should show them how to become strong. I am not against helping the weak for a short period of time. But they must be able to fend for themselves in the end. If not, then best to leave them to die.