Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

[boldilocks]

Not to mention that it deprives pressure waves from explosive weapons of a medium to pass through!

Might it not be preferable to have shockwaves dissipate through internal air pockets rather than through more structurally and technically important spaceship infrastructure?

Air shockwaves still carry the same force that the explosion lets out, whatever they would hit would be subjected to the same force that the localized area of the explosion has taken already. It would 'spread the love' in other words.

Right, instead of hammering straight through the metal struts (and whatever is connected to them, such as terminals and cables) of your ship and giving them a rough shaking, you instead spend explosive energy on buckling walls and pushing air around. And rupturing ear-drums.

Oh, rubber walls. A space ship with rubber walls with most compartments waterlogged.

[White]

I was wondering, actually. Do Loroi have a concept of imaginary freinds? Not to get too psycological, but I wonder about the level of genuine belief most kids can muster towards such a subject, and needing to mentally justify every aspect of such things in communication seems like it might stunt such developments, not that I'm assuming its either case.

[Arioch]

I was wondering, actually. Do Loroi have a concept of imaginary freinds? Not to get too psycological, but I wonder about the level of genuine belief most kids can muster towards such a subject, and needing to mentally justify every aspect of such things in communication seems like it might stunt such developments, not that I'm assuming its either case.

I wonder to what extent little kids really believe that their imaginary friends are real. I remember having an imaginary friend as a child, but I was very clear in my own mind that he was not real. But then, children live in a kind of magical world, since there is so much that they don't understand, everything seems like magic. I can imagine Loroi children have similar qualities, but they grow up very fast, in more ways than one.

Telepathy is truthful, which means that the sender believes what she is sending to be true; there is no guarantee that this information is actually true. Loroi have hopes and dreams and imagination; they just have to be identified as such, unlike a small child insisting that her imaginary friend is real. A creative Loroi child might draw or paint pictures of fantastical subjects, or imagine things or events that she'd wish to see, even if they are imaginary. It's mainly that Loroi culture doesn't value fantastical storytelling the way most human cultures do. Loroi tell stories, but they tend to be of

[White]

I was wondering, actually. Do Loroi have a concept of imaginary freinds? Not to get too psycological, but I wonder about the level of genuine belief most kids can muster towards such a subject, and needing to mentally justify every aspect of such things in communication seems like it might stunt such developments, not that I'm assuming its either case.

I wonder to what extent little kids really believe that their imaginary friends are real. I remember having an imaginary friend as a child, but I was very clear in my own mind that he was not real. But then, children live in a kind of magical world, since there is so much that they don't understand, everything seems like magic. I can imagine Loroi children have similar qualities, but they grow up very fast, in more ways than one.

Telepathy is truthful, which means that the sender believes what she is sending to be true; there is no guarantee that this information is actually true. Loroi have hopes and dreams and imagination; they just have to be identified as such, unlike a small child insisting that her imaginary friend is real. A creative Loroi child might draw or paint pictures of fantastical subjects, or imagine things or events that she'd wish to see, even if they are imaginary. It's mainly that Loroi culture doesn't value fantastical storytelling the way most human cultures do. Loroi tell stories, but they tend to be of

I think, in the case of imaginary friends, it's a case of children not questioning the existence of their imaginary friends. And, something about the cross cultural aspect of the phenomenon makes me think its more substantive than can be explained with a proclivity for fantastical story telling in human cultures.

Of course, the Loroi are aliens, so maybe they just don't have an inclination for fantastical story telling.

Also, I wanted to ask, did any of the aien cultures have a concept of time travel in their various fictions. The loroi, I would imagine not, since their story seems to consist mainly of old sagas, and time travel seems decidedly missing from the human equivalents. But, even then, time travel seems a rather recent invention in human fantasy, and I always wondered, if aliens conceived of it, weather they would be so bold as to make a story out of it -- and if they did, what kind of stories (human stories seem generally fixated on fixing past mistakes or otherwise dealing with the consequences of using time travel) -- considering the great deal of suspension wires you'd need to provide for everyone's disbelief whenever the grandfather paradoxes started popping up.

[Arioch]

Also, I wanted to ask, did any of the aien cultures have a concept of time travel in their various fictions.

Time travel seems to be among the earliest subjects of science fiction (along with travel to the moon and planets, and visitation by aliens), so I wouldn't be surprised if any storytelling culture would address the subject.

When we're talking about societies of billions of individuals, there is literally "nothing new under the sun"; one would expect that every possible subject has been considered or visited in some form. There are no doubt individual Loroi who sing or write vampire fanfics or dress up in furry suits or engage in bizarre sex acts or do almost anything you can imagine... the question is mainly whether such things are common or popular, or socially acceptable in their own culture.

I'd also point out that creative writing -- that is deliberate works of fiction -- is a comparatively recent feature of human culture, less than perhaps 1000 years old. We have long been storytellers, back to pre-literate ages, but our ancient campfire tales and myths and legends were, to their contemporaries, mostly told as true stories (however exaggerated or embellished or outright false). People told ghost and monster stories, and stories about gods and godlike heroes, but the listeners really believed in ghosts and monsters and gods and godlike heroes. The main difference in Loroi storytelling is that when a telepathic story is knowingly exaggerated or embellished or false, the listeners also know it.

[kfcroc18]

Ok I have to ask. You said that the Loroi enjoy sex so do they (help themselves).

[Zorg56]

Ok I have to ask. You said that the Loroi enjoy sex so do they (help themselves).

[Mk_C]

Ok I have to ask. You said that the Loroi enjoy sex so do they (help themselves).

There was a wonderful discussion on this subject in one of the /tg/ threads.

Arioch, please let this one remain canonically a mystery!

[Werra]

It occurs to me that "We'll bang, ok?" could easily be the telepathic name of a Loroi. Just what caste would that be?

[kfcroc18]

I'm just asking because that since they are telepathic it is not easy to keep it to themselves, buy if it is illegal and discouraged then How is it stopped? Porn police? I'm not sorry!

[Arioch]

It certainly wouldn't be illegal, or even a social taboo, but I would expect it to be as embarrassing a subject to Loroi as it is to us. And that there's very little privacy in the close quarters aboard a starship.

While the Loroi are very strict about duty, they don't share the early Christian view of pleasure as sinful. For a male Loroi, it might be regarded as a frivolous waste of precious seed, but for a female Loroi that's not an issue, nor is she concerned about modesty or chastity (Loroi males don't place any value on female virginity).

[boldilocks]

Early christians weren't really opposed to pleasure, they were opposed to masturbation, which seems to be pretty common across a large number of religions and cultures, the common idea seeming to be that chronic masturbators become dull, lethargic and/or weird.

[dragoongfa]

Early christians weren't really opposed to pleasure, they were opposed to masturbation, which seems to be pretty common across a large number of religions and cultures, the common idea seeming to be that chronic masturbators become dull, lethargic and/or weird.

Societally speaking up until recently it was in society's best interests to ensure as many births as possible while also having a large number of farmhands. High infant mortality, frequent disease outbreaks, frequent wars and famines; you name it and it's a reason to ensure that as many people procreated as possible in order to ensure fresh meat for the grinder.

Funny thing is, that people don't like to hear the above and prefer to hear the comfortable lie of it being a sin or making people stupid.

Also, Kenjataimu is a thing because horny people have their minds clouded.

[Mk_C]

Societally speaking up until recently it was in society's best interests to ensure as many births as possible while also having a large number of farmhands. High infant mortality, frequent disease outbreaks, frequent wars and famines; you name it and it's a reason to ensure that as many people procreated as possible in order to ensure fresh meat for the grinder.

Funny thing is, that people don't like to hear the above and prefer to hear the comfortable lie of it being a sin or making people stupid.

Wanking and cultural effects of social policies.

We only need to figure out how to involve space combat and I believe we'll achieve the most Outsider discourse possible.

[boldilocks]

Societally speaking up until recently it was in society's best interests to ensure as many births as possible while also having a large number of farmhands. High infant mortality, frequent disease outbreaks, frequent wars and famines; you name it and it's a reason to ensure that as many people procreated as possible in order to ensure fresh meat for the grinder.

Funny thing is, that people don't like to hear the above and prefer to hear the comfortable lie of it being a sin or making people stupid.

Also, Kenjataimu is a thing because horny people have their minds clouded.

The concept of Kenjataimu is more indicative of a lethargic and dull mindset than the mindset of a sage.
It hasn't been an uncommon upper class idea that there were too many poor people and that they need to have some kind of control on lower class breeding to keep their population from growing so much that it induces famine, and yet at the same time they maintained a social taboo on masturbation.
Maybe they weren't aware of a link between masturbation and lowered birth rates, or maybe masturbation alone is not enough to lower birthrates.

[Arioch]

Early christians weren't really opposed to pleasure, they were opposed to masturbation, which seems to be pretty common across a large number of religions and cultures, the common idea seeming to be that chronic masturbators become dull, lethargic and/or weird.

Early Christianity was obsessed with martyrdom; suffering and the abasement of the self was considered holy. Priests were (nominally) supposed to renounce sex and all forms of Earthly pleasure. Devout followers routinely fasted or engaged in self-flagellation to become more "pure." Pleasures of the flesh were considered inherently sinful (lust and gluttony included among the "seven deadly sins"), and sexual pleasure was accepted only as an unfortunate side effect of the mandate to procreate. Even thoughts of sex were considered impure and wicked.

Christianity isn't unique in this respect, but as the most popular religion of humanity, it has perhaps had the largest impact on what we consider "human" mores.

[Werra]

It hasn't been an uncommon upper class idea that there were too many poor people and that they need to have some kind of control on lower class breeding to keep their population from growing so much that it induces famine, and yet at the same time they maintained a social taboo on masturbation.
Maybe they weren't aware of a link between masturbation and lowered birth rates, or maybe masturbation alone is not enough to lower birthrates.

The extreme rejection of masturbation is more of a remnant of the Victorian era. Victorians were so zealous about sexual purity because venereal diseases like syhphilis had become endemic in the Elizabethan era. That and the tightly packed urbanized human masses of those times likely put quite the selective pressure on Europeans to weed out the sexually promiscuous.

[boldilocks]

Early christians weren't really opposed to pleasure, they were opposed to masturbation, which seems to be pretty common across a large number of religions and cultures, the common idea seeming to be that chronic masturbators become dull, lethargic and/or weird.

Early Christianity was obsessed with martyrdom; suffering and the abasement of the self was considered holy. Priests were (nominally) supposed to renounce sex and all forms of Earthly pleasure. Devout followers routinely fasted or engaged in self-flagellation to become more "pure." Pleasures of the flesh were considered inherently sinful (lust and gluttony included among the "seven deadly sins"), and sexual pleasure was accepted only as an unfortunate side effect of the mandate to procreate. Even thoughts of sex were considered impure and wicked.

Christianity isn't unique in this respect, but as the most popular religion of humanity, it has perhaps had the largest impact on what we consider "human" mores.

Martyrdom was a strategy for dealing with suppression and as a means of propaganda for the faith, obsession is a strange way to put it. They certainly venerated those christians who were martyred, but this was a part of the propaganda effort. There were certainly far more regular and devout christians than there were martyrs.

My understanding was that priestly celibacy in christianity was a more modern invention (ie, middle-ages), although it's certainly true that celibacy among religious monks is common in most religions. Of course, celibacy in christianity would be necessary for priests lest they'd lead women out of marital chastity, so maybe that works both ways. But as I recall you could be married and yet still be ordained a priest.

The idea of sexual pleasure only being accepted as an unfortunate side effect is something I'm not sure where stems from, the discussions among early church fathers seems to be split along the line of sexual pleasure luring people away from god and sexual pleasure expressing that gods love of man is planted in their very being, but I'm not sure how serious that line even was.

Lust and gluttony are quite different from enjoying pleasures of the flesh. It's like saying that enjoying a drink is the same as being a drunk.
And a glutton can also be someone who is particular in how they eat to such an extent that they persistently annoy those around them, according to aquinas. Yet despite this, early christians cooked and brewed to please the flesh, just as later christians did.
Even christian monks who practiced asceticism would still brew and cook with spices that enhanced their meals, even if they also fasted. (And this is also the case in other ascetic sects.)

I think it's important to recognize that there is a difference between
the practice of rigid ascetic self-discipline,
the more regular and relaxed adherence to religious faith,
lying around in the town square trying to stare up women's skirts while jerking your cock.
And that while the last form of total abandonment of any kind of self-discipline was certainly roundly condemned in just about every culture, the first two weren't.

[Mk_C]

Early Christianity was obsessed with martyrdom; suffering and the abasement of the self was considered holy. Priests were (nominally) supposed to renounce sex and all forms of Earthly pleasure. Devout followers routinely fasted or engaged in self-flagellation to become more "pure." Pleasures of the flesh were considered inherently sinful (lust and gluttony included among the "seven deadly sins"), and sexual pleasure was accepted only as an unfortunate side effect of the mandate to procreate. Even thoughts of sex were considered impure and wicked.

Christianity isn't unique in this respect, but as the most popular religion of humanity, it has perhaps had the largest impact on what we consider "human" mores.

I'm somewhat surprised that an explicitly very martial and very spartan society that exercises a high degree of centralized control over reproduction, largely rejects personal property and belongings in favor of communal ones, and sees martial excellency, glory in combat and personal sacrifice to the community as the highest virtues among the warrior class (and has a sprawling history of collapsing over and over to over-reproduction and famine, to boot) is not quite obsessed with minimalist practices and martyrdom, by human standards.

We saw that Talon and Spiral anticipate their own approaching demises, which they see as inevitable and agreeable. We know that lasting personal infatuation is natural but shunned, and reproductive deprivation is common and gastronomic culture varies from tame to weird, while heroic warriors are celebrated beyond their deaths, and even simple close contact is a thing of deep personal trust and militant camaraderie. How do Loroi cultures internalize these conditions without developing them into diverse practices of self-restraint, personal suppression and martyrdom?

Of course, celibacy in christianity would be necessary for priests lest they'd lead women out of marital chastity, so maybe that works both ways. But as I recall you could be married and yet still be ordained a priest.

Universal celibacy of priesthood is a Catholic thing. Orthodox churches allow for married priests, although numerous denominations do not allow episcopal ordination for priests that are not also tonsured into monkhood. And Protestants be Protestants.

The extreme rejection of masturbation is more of a remnant of the Victorian era. Victorians were so zealous about sexual purity because venereal diseases like syhphilis had become endemic in the Elizabethan era. That and the tightly packed urbanized human masses of those times likely put quite the selective pressure on Europeans to weed out the sexually promiscuous.

Similar practices emerged and declined due to various reasons across the entire human history, in less or more extreme forms - like Cathars, Bogomils and Skoptsy. And similar sentiments are not exclusive to Christianity, much less Victorian Anglican Christianity. The American Puritan practices in particular have absolutely and exactly nothing to do with Victorian culture.

[Arioch]

My understanding was that priestly celibacy in christianity was a more modern invention (ie, middle-ages), although it's certainly true that celibacy among religious monks is common in most religions.

By "early" Christianity, I meant pre-Enlightenment. The practices I'm talking about are specifically from the Middle Ages. And yes, there are other religions that have similar or even more extreme practices, as I said. (It is rather curious how similar the Catholic and Buddhist monastic characteristics are, right down to chantry and shaven heads and rosaries.)

Lust and gluttony are quite different from enjoying pleasures of the flesh.

I guess it depends on your definition. I think that in the religious sense, lust is the pursuit of sexual pleasure for its own sake without regard to procreation, and gluttony is the pursuit of eating for the pleasure of it without regard to nutrition (or the plight of the hungry). You can understand why a religion would want to discourage such excesses, but that doesn't quite justify the extremes to which medieval Christianity gloried suffering as holy and vilified pleasure as sinful.

I'm somewhat surprised that an explicitly very martial and very spartan society that exercises a high degree of centralized control over reproduction, largely rejects personal property and belongings in favor of communal ones, and sees martial excellency, glory in combat and personal sacrifice to the community as the highest virtues among the warrior class (and has a sprawling history of collapsing over and over to over-reproduction and famine, to boot) is not quite obsessed with minimalist practices and martyrdom, by human standards.

We saw that Talon and Spiral anticipate their own approaching demises, which they see as inevitable and agreeable. We know that lasting personal infatuation is natural but shunned, and reproductive deprivation is common and gastronomic culture varies from tame to weird, while heroic warriors are celebrated beyond their deaths, and even simple close contact is a thing of deep personal trust and militant camaraderie. How do Loroi cultures internalize these conditions without developing them into diverse practices of self-restraint, personal suppression and martyrdom?

Personal deprivation is a necessary reality of military life and a matter of ordinary military discipline; I don't see any need to make dogma out of it. You don't have to preach celibacy when sex partners simply aren't available, and you don't have to rail against the sin of gluttony when food is rationed. You don't want your soldiers to be fasting like ascetic monks.

You also don't want them throwing away their lives needlessly. I think that obsession with either martyrdom or personal glory or honor is a fatal flaw in a military culture. The purpose of warfare is victory, and victory is not well served either by soldiers seeking death or glory, or by commanders for whom retreat is not an option. To paraphrase Patton: battles are not won by dying for your country; rather, they are won by making your opponent die for his. The Loroi motto extolls the virtues of Duty, Unity and Victory; it does not mention death, personal glory or personal honor. Loroi mythologize the epic deeds of victorious heroes, not necessarily their deaths, and certainly not meaningless deaths in pursuit of personal honor. A capable professional soldier must accept that death may be likely or even inevitable in certain circumstances, but that does not make it welcome or agreeable. I don't think that anything Talon or Spiral said indicates that they are looking forward to their deaths, or that they find the prospect agreeable (on the contrary, Spiral concurs with Alex that "it is the most messed up!").