I think you just proved too much -- ATPo Discussion Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:52:51 10/27/05 Thu
Author: Sophist
Subject: I think you just proved too much
In reply to: Celebaelin 's message, "In my spare time" on 12:21:01 10/27/05 Thu

Of the examples of consequenceless magic that you give a fair number are along the line of the re-unification of the Xanders in The Replacement. The magic is functioning in maintaining an effect or overcoming a mystical rule and the ending of that circumstance is essentially restoring the status quo rather than subverting it.

This was exactly the logic which led to the resurrection spell:

"WILLOW: This isn't like Dawn trying to bring Mrs. Summers back, or anything we've dealt with before. Buffy didn't die a natural death. She was killed by mystical energy.
TARA: Which means we do have a shot."

They were just restoring the natural order of things, so it shouldn't have any consequences.

Moreover, "the natural order of things" is a pretty loose concept. In one sense, anything which happens is part of the natural order. It's only the fact that you agree with the outcome which makes the reversal spells seem "normal". If you were on the other side, every reversal spell would itself be a violation of "natural order".

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: surrection -- Celebaelin, 13:38:44 10/27/05 Thu
- Some quick counterexamples -- Sophist, 13:58:58 10/27/05 Thu
  - And my counter -- Celebaelin, 14:27:37 10/27/05 Thu
    - Why a scythe -- Sunshine, 14:54:03 10/27/05 Thu
      - Re: Why a scythe - translation problem ? -- Rich, 18:15:23 10/28/05 Fri
        Or -- Celebaelin, 03:25:30 10/29/05 Sat
        Re: Or -- Jane, 15:57:14 10/29/05 Sat
        True, but... -- Celebaelin, 16:10:45 10/29/05 Sat
        Re: Or -- manwitch, 04:46:07 10/31/05 Mon
        Holistic links -- Celebaelin, 05:03:12 10/31/05 Mon
    - Coup de grass! Whilst we're OT -- Celebaelin, 15:13:03 10/27/05 Thu
      - Re: Coup de grass! Whilst we're OT -- Sunshine, 17:25:45 10/27/05 Thu
    - Flaws in your counter -- Sophist, 15:44:07 10/27/05 Thu
      - Re: Flaws in your counter -- Sophist, 15:45:08 10/27/05 Thu
  - Dancing lights and Faerie fire -- Celebaelin, 16:58:04 10/27/05 Thu
    - Re: Dancing lights and Faerie fire -- MarkM, 03:33:57 10/31/05 Mon
      - Emphasis -- Celebaelin, 05:30:15 10/31/05 Mon
        Re: Emphasis -- MarkM, 05:32:18 11/01/05 Tue
        Certainty -- Celebaelin, 06:17:29 11/02/05 Wed
      - Agreed. (NT) -- Sophist, 08:40:34 10/31/05 Mon

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.