Paging Dr. @S_Alexander, I repeat, paging Dr. @S_Alexander
I call everything cake and try to navigate, we use the word “cake” differently here anyway. 
It really comes down to the recipe.
2 Likes
That might be my problem since we almost never make cake homemade (we make a lot of other things homemade, just not cake with a few exceptions (we make our lemon pound cake homemade)).
2 Likes
There so many different cakes and even so many different chocolate cakes that I would call this poll the worst poll on OGS.
(Well I know I am a foodie too)
Hey now, don’t be upset just because glorious lemon drizzle is winning 
1 Like
I’m hate- watching Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla reviews, and there’s a side-quest that goes like this:
A retired warrior is now a fisherman and bitter that he didn’t have a heroic death in battle. So, he picks a fight with the protagonist in front of his son (they were fishing in a lake and the protagonist passed by or something) and he is supposed to kill him, so that his spawn witnesses him die from a weapon.
I wonder how this thing got past all those people and qualified as a “heroic death side-quest”. My only explanation is they were all drunk. But I would like some opinions, so:
Does dying in a brawl that you caused count as a heroic death, equal to dying in battle?
- Yes
- No
0 voters
Notes
- I despise stuff that keeps the name and changes the content, just to lure fans. Imagine the equivalent of “Oreos: tuna salad version”. But that’s just me.
- I’ve heard it’s actually the “fallen” go to Valhalla (meaning the dead), and not necessarily the “slain” (meaning the ones that died in battle), but that’s another matter.
2 Likes
And a serious question (I’m watching a documentary):
Should artifacts displayed in museums worldwide be returned to their country/ culture of origin, if applicable?
- Yes
- No
0 voters
What do y’all think?
1 Like
The purpose of a museum is to educate its visitors, and to protect and provide sources for researchers. If every country hoards its cultural heritage within its borders without sharing it with the world, we’re ghetto-izing knowledge. How is a German researcher of Mesopotamia, for example, able to do their job if they have to venture into a war area and risk kidnapping, just to read some cuneiform tablets? Why shouldn’t they be able to visit the museum in Berlin to do it there in safety?
Some countries are in unstable conditions and we can’t risk the destruction of heritage just to appease national pride. However, this argument is quite patronizing. Greece is perfectly capable of ensuring that the Elgin Marbles stay in perfect condition. And many artifacts are in some way holy or sacred and need to be brought into their homeland to make sure the people there can reconnect to their heritage, like idols of Gods.
So decisions have to be made for every case in particular, and if the repatriation of an artifact is necessary but not possible or not recommendable, it must at least be transferred symbolically into the property of that nation, but the museum may keep it until repatriation is safe.
What’s important is to share knowledge among all of humanity and make sure that our common cultural heritage is preserved, treated with respect, and accessible to those with genuine interest in it.
2 Likes
I agree. If there was an option for “not necessarily, but it depends on the specific case”, I’d have voted for that. As it is I voted no because I don’t think it’s a straight “yes”.
Another issue with a straight yes is the same issue with which country has the rights to a given piece of land. About the only lasting solution humanity seems to have is war, and its corallary, the threat of war (to make peace treaties meaningful). I’m not saying that’s a bad thing: it would be pretty pedantic and [insert word that means haughty and above-everyone-else and is often used to describe Draco Malfoy in fanfics, but I can’t remember right now] to say that war is a bad solution when noone has been able to find a better one. I think the relevant factor here is that “bad” doesn’t modify “war”, it modifies “solution”, and while one can hardly argue with calling war “bad”, I think it is not at all self-evident that it is a bad solution to at least some problems.
So basically, I think that there are some obvious cases where artifacts et al should remain in the possession of the current holders, other obvious cases where they should be remanded to their country/people of origin, and a great deal of cases where it’s not at all as clear cut as all that.
3 Likes
They should be returned if not granted by the country. For the sake of the example, let’s take the British Museum in London. Most of the things you find in the British Museum have simply been looted by the British during their colonial era or during wars.
Surely the artefacts are safer in London than in, say, Egypt at the moment, but the majority are not voluntarily granted by the Egyptians. And that they are safe in London is not granted: plenty of stolen artefacts were destroyed in Europe during the World Wars, and it isn’t guaranteed that there won’t be another war taking place in London in the future.
And it is surely convenient for researchers based in London, but why should an Egyptian researcher have to travel to London to study their own heritage?
It’s not uncommon at all for museums to exchange their property, so the artefacts could be returned, but stay on display in the museum they’re currently based in, or they travel around the world to increase the accessibility.
And it’s not just colonial embezzlement: for example, during the second World War a lot of Dutch art was stolen by the Germans or smuggled outside of Europe by fleeing Jews (many art collectors were Jewish at that time), and it has been quite a thing to get it back to the Netherlands.
8 Likes
Yes, museums around the world should work together and exchange stuff on a regular base and for longer periods than just one season or exhibition. Research should generally be made as easy as possible without exposing the artifacts to harm.
Another issue that I didn’t think of until
was mentioned. What about artifacts that can’t be assigned to a single nation that still exists or is dispersed over more than one modern country?
3 Likes
Yes, except if the artifact / artwork was borrowed with the country’s consent. If not, it should definitely be returned.
*cough* Nofretete… *cough* Dinosaur bones from Tanzania… *cough* “Völkerkunde” Museum *cough* 
2 Likes
I don’t want to be the devil lawyer but in the history of the world, it’s a bit like wars, you steal something and don’t give back for whatever reason (the fake said one and the real often hidden one).
And it stays like that…
I’m not a lover of these behavior, but it’s reality. Hope it will change some day.
1 Like
a bit off topic but the number of likes on the last 7 posts is 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1
3 Likes
@Samraku why does it count as a heroic death?! I really want to hear that opinion.
1 Like
Because I like tragic stories. A warrior wishing to die in battle to the point where he picks a fight to try and get himself killed appeals to me. It’s a certain mix of futility and determination, of hope and despair, of control over fate and puppet of fate. It’s a feeling which is more than half both tragic and not. It is a conflict between ideals distilled into reality by a mind unafraid to look his beliefs in the eye, and follow them. It is Juliet declaring that Paris will never wed but a corpse; it is Carlini saving Rita through death; it is Antigone acknowledging no authority over natural law; it is the fruit of Saki’s endeavoring bleeding out in the bathroom; it is Homura, Sayaka, Mami, and Madoka; it is the last charge of Okkoto; the starvation of Setsuko; Anne-Marie floating on a plank.
I have not played the game you are referring to, so perhaps I am being to kind to the story as it is, but this is what your synopsis feels as to me.
Stories Referenced:
2 Likes
I’m not as well-read as you, but to me it feels like a cop-out. 
Also, tragic is not heroic.
1 Like
It depends on the battle you started.
- A battle to end all racism everywhere? A heroic death.
- A battle to take over the world and convert everywhere to follow you, but you’re the only one fighting for it and you die? Not a heroic death.
- A battle where you are trying to be seen as a hero so you die in a battle you created only so you could die and be seen as a hero? Not heroic, until the battle is for a legitimate cause.
There’s a difference between a good battle and a bad battle. If you create a good battle, which will be worth it in the end, and die, IMO it counts as a heroic death. If you create a battle with a neutral or stupid cause, only to die a “heroic death”, no. That does not count.
2 Likes
I kind of agree there, but I heard a different opinion and it warranted some consideration:
USA goes to other countries, kills and leaves (let’s not argue about that, it is what it is).
So, I was adamant that a mercenary (professional army, so mercenaries basically) dying in Iraq isn’t a hero. But a veteran said, someone who hugged a grenade on the floor to save their squad, is a hero to them, in the situation, even if it isn’t a heroic war.
This got me thinking.
2 Likes
I’m sure we’ve just read different things. Also, only the first three on that list are books, and I know you’ve read Antigone, at least. Metamorphosis is a manga, the next three anime, and the last a western animated film.
That is possible. I was trying to capture a certain feeling induced by certain works, and I have no doubt others could capture it better. I will try a less poetic approach.
As we read stories, we all suspend our disbelief to varying extents: up to and including questions of morality. If physics deals with that which we can do, morality deals with that which we should. Watching “Leon: the Professional”, the contract killer is in the right; watching “Batman: the Animated Series”, the vigilante. These are not views I hold in reality, but they are views I hold for the purposes of watching those two works, respectively. There are limits to how far I am willing to suspend disbelief, but these do not hit it.
In the same way, I accept as author fiat, that if a character considers death in battle a worthy goal, that that is a worthy goal. Therefore, I will accept that character acting in a manner which may contradict my morality in real life, in order to follow the morality which exists within the universe of the artistic work. So it is heroic because it is so until proven otherwise. A good author will indicate if it is to be taken in another way, such as in Rick and Morty when one of Rick’s friends request that he kill him so that he will have been killed by a worthy foe, and get into heaven, in his religion, and after Morty asks him if he has any evidence that his religion is true, he panics, runs outside, promptly gets hit by a truck, and is dragged screaming down to hell as Morty sputters that that’s some damn good evidence his religion is true. :D
But the example of heroism you gave is at least as tragic as heroic, and tragedy with no heroism is liable to cause Darkness Induced Audience Apathy; a character falling is far less impactful than a character falling 10 feet from the top of Mt. Everest. (Saki from “Metamorphosis”, mentioned above, is an excellent example of this: her initial downward spiral is tragic, but not nearly as tragic as the devastating crash in the last chapter which only comes after she has put so much of herself into achieving something. It is that last chapter that packs so painful a punch; not because she could fall any lower than she had, but because she fell despite everything she had put her all into achieving, step by determined step.)