bentflame | (no subject)

No.

That sort of thing would never happen in real life; at least not in the Fire Nation. A single soldier's failure could never be the downfall of the entire army.

What's a "horse shoe"?

Heh.

Strictly speaking, it could. If the soldier was in an important position. Some accounts are that the king himself falls due to the faulty nail. It's mostly a fable with a number of possible morals. The main ones are 'a single piece out of place can destroy the whole' or 'strong things are only as strong as their weakest point.'

A horse shoe is a metal cover for the hoof of a horse. A horse is a large quadruped, commonly used as a beast of burden. The shoes are nailed to their hooves, hence when a nail is bent it becomes loose and the shoe may fall off or twist into a position that will cause the horse to fall.

If we put someone in such an important position, we make sure they have plenty of back-up.

I see. It doesn't hurt the animal? I don't know much about hooved creatures.

Wise, but what it's not to be taken too literally. A similar fable involving clocks exists, but it's possible you don't have clocks in your world either.

As far as I'm aware, no. The nail is inserted into the keratin covering of the foot, not into actual flesh. Keratin is the same material which makes up finger nails and some animal horns and thus has no nerves.

Of course we do.

Ah, I see.

I see. Do they use mechanical springs and cogs? Otherwise the fable will still be meaningless.

I'm always happy to educate.

They do, actually.

The fable is a simple one. A man spends his entire life building a clock made from the finest, sturdiest materials. All the cogs are perfect and practically indestructible. But springs have to be flexible, meaning building them too sturdily would simply not work. Thus the springs could not handle the pressure of the invincible cogs and broke.
The most obvious moral is 'no matter how sturdy an object is, the weakest points can only take so much pressure' and 'denying flaws will only make things worse.'

Then it's a good thing that I don't deny flaws-- I eliminate them.

You do seem the type to attempt that. But that leads us to the third moral of the clock-'no matter how strong something is, it can never be completely indestructable.' Making yourself stronger endlessly will create new flaws as you grow. Although I'm far from saying one should simply accept their own flaws-people who believe that are just lazy.

Any new "flaws" that are created are in turn eliminated.

And in turn, new ones follow. It's better to perfectly understand ones weaknesses and then apply that knowledge to limit them or even turn them to ones advantage. A friend of mine has a terrible temper. Just to even scratch him in battle will drive him into an uncontrollable rage. But he can easily use this flaw to increase his conviction not to receive any damage in combat, and through practice he has learnt to channel his rage to devastating effect. If he merely tried to control his temper, he would suffer undue mental pressure or be unable to properly utilise his strength.

Turning a former disadvantage into an advantage certainly sounds like elimination to me.

I wouldn't call it elimination. He still has the disadvantage. If he is to lose his temper when not in combat or becomes enraged too early in battle, he suffers for it. But the fact remains that the advantages of having the flaw and understanding it outweigh removing it completely.

He can't eliminate that part of it?

If he truly wanted to, I suppose he could. But to learn to control even a part of his anger would lessen the effectiveness of the rage as a whole. The real question you're asking is, should he seek his own unique strength and master that, or should he search for a generic universal strength? I believe you're the type who prefers to have a universal strength, but that can never be totally mastered.

I can control myself, but I'm not a worse fighter because of it. Your argument is lacking, at least when you try to apply it to me.

I'm not implying that you should lose your self control. In fact, from what I've seen of you already, that would likely be the worst step you could take. I am saying that it is better to consider carefully personal specialties and flaws, then create an individual type of strength. Rather than reaching for an all encompassing strength that cannot be fully achieved.

I'm curious as to why you think that can't be achieved. Personal experience?

Quite the opposite. Of all the people I know, I am the person most able to reach a strength you could call 'complete strength', but that is due having first realised an individual strength which can be applied to reaching for that. But you, on the other hand, are neglecting personal strength to reach for complete strength. I have no doubt that a woman of your conviction and confidence could possess an individual strength far superior to any universal strength you could ever achieve.

Don't be a fool. I have both.

Likely yes, you do. But the difference between what they are, your goal to make them grow to and what you can actually achieve are vastly different. A shame. People with true potential are so rare. I would so love to see you find your own strength.
['So I could take it from you at its peak. That would be so amusing, it'd be worth letting you live.']

You think they're so different, but they're not. I know myself far better than you do.

That's a distinct possibility, but then, it's also perfectly probable that I've been completely correct about everything I've said. I've never even see you fight or perform something you would say fits under your specialties, so I am merely extrapolating what I can from your personality. And for all I know, your mannerisms are in fact very good fakes and you've actually achieved a personal strength. Maybe your personal strength is giving people the impression you've not found one.

What an interesting idea.

My mannerisms? Explain.

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]

[Anon]

Re: [Anon]