[Wilshire]

I find your utter hatred for Kellhus refreshing in a board of Zaudunyani

Whoa, shots fired.

Kellhus is a broken Dunyain. He's not human, but I also don't think I'd characterize him as a Sranc for souls.

This.

[locke]

Is there any soul he encounters he doesn't agressively preemptively attempt to rape upon the instant of meeting?

Why does he believe he is entitled to do it?  Being smarter doesn't make him above consent, he just seizes and violates upon the moment of first meeting, he's basically got a permanent sranc erection of the metaphysical variety, constantly penetrating, trying to slake his unquenchable lust, and failing.

[The Sharmat]

Is there any soul he encounters he doesn't agressively preemptively attempt to rape upon the instant of meeting?

His kids.

Why does he believe he is entitled to do it?  Being smarter doesn't make him above consent, he just seizes and violates upon the moment of first meeting, he's basically got a permanent sranc erection of the metaphysical variety, constantly penetrating, trying to slake his unquenchable lust, and failing.

You're forgetting the most terrible thing about a Dunyain. He takes nothing. He makes them consent.

Is that not consent? This isn't even going into Cants of Compulsion. All Kellhus does is communicate information. Some of which is lies. But more often he ensnares with glimpses of truth.

I can't believe I'm defending Kellhus.

[Wilshire]

No we're getting into The Argument territory

Whats the difference between the consent given when coerced, and the consent given when not coerced? Its chemically, physically, and emotionally the same from the POV of the consentee? Who gives you, or anyone else, the right to judge their interaction?

Seems to me like you are suggesting some kind of objective pedestal one might sit upon and always be in the right when laying down judgments.

[The Sharmat]

Seems to me like you are suggesting some kind of objective pedestal one might sit upon and always be in the right when laying down judgments.

If that is what I'm doing, and there is one, then I am right. If that is what I'm doing, and I'm wrong, then technically it is not objectively wrong for me to lay down subjective moral judgements and treat them as objective, is it?

Of course then that boils down the entire argument to "Kellhus bad. Kellhus make me feel icky to read."

[s Ī n Ī ster to Ā st]

If you were the world's only adult and all others were toddlers,  would you not seek to guide them? Impose order on the chaos they would naturally create?  would you not seek to Come Before Them?

[Wilshire]

Seems to me like you are suggesting some kind of objective pedestal one might sit upon and always be in the right when laying down judgments.

If that is what I'm doing, and there is one, then I am right. If that is what I'm doing, and I'm wrong, then technically it is not objectively wrong for me to lay down subjective moral judgements and treat them as objective, is it?

Of course then that boils down the entire argument to "Kellhus bad. Kellhus make me feel icky to read."

Was moreso directed at locke, but yes I agree.

If you were the world's only adult and all others were toddlers,  would you not seek to guide them? Impose order on the chaos they would naturally create?  would you not seek to Come Before Them?

Certainly something that could be argued.

[locke]

Is there any soul he encounters he doesn't agressively preemptively attempt to rape upon the instant of meeting?

His kids.

Why does he believe he is entitled to do it?  Being smarter doesn't make him above consent, he just seizes and violates upon the moment of first meeting, he's basically got a permanent sranc erection of the metaphysical variety, constantly penetrating, trying to slake his unquenchable lust, and failing.

You're forgetting the most terrible thing about a Dunyain. He takes nothing. He makes them consent.

Is that not consent? This isn't even going into Cants of Compulsion. All Kellhus does is communicate information. Some of which is lies. But more often he ensnares with glimpses of truth.

I can't believe I'm defending Kellhus.

She really wanted it!  Even liked it at the end!

(How do we know these aren't merely kellhus' excuses and self flattering justifications and rationalizations?)

In other words just because kellhus can rationalize his actions to himself doesn't mean his rationalizations have any more credence than the same rationalization used by the bard.

The presence of such rationalizations merely indicates the depth and breadth of kellhus self deception, and it's there from the beginning. 

His ignorance of his self is breathtaking.

[The Sharmat]

She really wanted it!  Even liked it at the end!

Usually said as a defense in cases where the victim made their refusal quite clear and continued to do so long afterwards. This is more like a woman crying rape because she voluntarily slept with a dude that claimed to be an astronaut and then got mad when she later found out he was lying. That makes the guy in question scummy,but it doesn't make him a rapist.

(How do we know these aren't merely kellhus' excuses and self flattering justifications and rationalizations?)

Because we have read the thoughts of his worshipers. They're weeping for gratitude, generally.

In other words just because kellhus can rationalize his actions to himself doesn't mean his rationalizations have any more credence than the same rationalization used by the bard.

The presence of such rationalizations merely indicates the depth and breadth of kellhus self deception, and it's there from the beginning. 

His ignorance of his self is breathtaking.

Sure. And Kellhus likes power. I just think you're emphasizing the wrong character beats a bit.

You want a Sranc for souls? Check out Kelmomas/Samarmas.

[Walter]

I don't think we've ever seen Kellhus rape someone.  I also think he would have any problem with doing so.  He's certainly murdered.  People individually aren't sacred to him. He seems to be acting in order to cause humanity, collectively, to continue, but the question of the book is, more or less, why?

[Wilshire]

She really wanted it!  Even liked it at the end!

(How do we know these aren't merely kellhus' excuses and self flattering justifications and rationalizations?)

In other words just because kellhus can rationalize his actions to himself doesn't mean his rationalizations have any more credence than the same rationalization used by the bard.

The presence of such rationalizations merely indicates the depth and breadth of kellhus self deception, and it's there from the beginning. 

His ignorance of his self is breathtaking.

Thats quite the emotional appeal.

His ignorance of his self is breathtaking.

He's just as easily in 100% control and understanding of himself as he is in ignorance. More words without his POV than with, why are you so certain you are correct.

[locke]

Why are you so resistant to applying kellhusian analysis methods to kellhus?

Rape of souls is what kellhus does, he penetrates and violates everyone he encounters, but he had to find a backdoor for cnaiur.

[SilentRoamer]

Didn't work on Aurang. Aurang was like "Hell naw bitch! I am the raper of thousands!"

[Wilshire]

Why are you so resistant to applying kellhusian analysis methods to kellhus?

That was a question directed at yourself, right? Seems to me like your analysis is based entirely on emotional rhetoric rather than any kind of intellectual dissection.

"Tricking people is mean and it hurts my feelings, so Kellhus is evil", which is a pretty fair interpretation of your logic so far, hardly seems kellhusian, to me anyway.

[The Sharmat]

He's just as easily in 100% control and understanding of himself as he is in ignorance.

I dispute this but my arguments all rely on stuff from the first trilogy so if he somehow became a literal God in the 20 year interim where we have nothing from his POV I wouldn't know it.