{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/8/2016 11:10:52 PM
47
If you apply the stringent criteria you do to disproving something you need to apply it to yourself as well. Below you'll understand.
[quote]A theory has been going around, popularized by some (including MyNameIsByf) that the Worm Gods in the books of sorrow are Ahamkara. This is due to ONE phrase in the books that sounds like the Ahamkara and the fact that Worm can mean dragon.[/quote]
Wrong right off the bat. There are multiple references to draw that conclusion. Akka describing his body is just one. That the dead worm speaks to whatever sister had it and she uses the speech pattern "oh sister mine" is a direct parallel to the ahamkara gear as dead bones as well as their flavor text "oh bearer mine". They also struck bargains similar to each other. So do your research if you want to disprove a theory.
[quote]There are MULTIPLE reasons to believe this interpretation is inaccurate.
1. The proper term for dragon is Wyrm, not Worm. While some archaic texts do not make this distinction, it should be known that in modern terminology it is improper.[/quote]
Bungie has not used the term wyrm so we do not know if the is is relevant at all. We have seen worm, dragon, and ahamkara. Unless we see wyrm there is no reason for bungie to be following that nomenclature. Hell they called the flying dragons on Venus batadactyls and are not ahamkara. Unless that's a lie which with bungie who knows.
[quote]2. The Hive Worm Gods have larva, which look like worms. Dragons are reptiles. They do not have larva.[/quote]
Assumption and if you want to get real technical dragons would be birds or dinosaurs not reptiles. They have feathers in game. Regardless we don't know the phylogeny of the ahamkara to say what they are. Either way we dont know the lifecycle of the dragons in destiny. For all we know they could have larvae as they may only be called dragons due to looks. The worms call themselves worms. The ahamkara don't refer to themselves in game.
[quote]3. The Ahamkara have no known connection to the Hive. The Worm Gods were found in a gas giant. The Ahamkara were on Venus.[/quote]
No known connection doesn't exclude a possible one and while you're right about the worm gods the ahamakara were not restricted to Venus.
[quote]4. They were killed by guardians in the droves, which doesn't suggest the power the Hive God's possessed.[/quote]
Droves is an assumption. We don't know how many there were to begin with or how difficult they were to kill. We know that teams of warlocks were the only ones capable of hunting adults for the most part. Also there is no indication that the ahamkara were ever as powerful as the worm gods to begin with.
[quote]5. Akka, a Hive Worm God, is KNOWN to have had a carapace, something Dragons DO NOT HAVE.
6. Akka's Carapace was larger than the Dreadnaught. Ahamkara bones decorate Guardians.[/quote]
Again you're comparing to likely [b]the[/b] largest and most powerful of the worms. That's a poor comparison as clearly the ahamakara weren't the peak of the worm hierarchy even if they were one and the same. They would be smaller and of various sizes. You're also again assuming biology with the basis in game. Look at the concept art. They clearly are not typical European style dragons and easily could have a carapace.
[quote]7. The Books of Sorrow specifically mention a group known as 'Dragons' that have favor with the Worm Gods. This difference HEAVILY implies that the two entities are distinct.
In conclusion, a connection between the Worm Gods and Ahamkara is suggested, but NEVER stated. In addition, any attempt that suggests they are the same grossly misconstrues information and must rely on some form of unfounded assumption.
Edit 1: Is it beyond reason to believe that Ahamkara and the Worms are the same?
No.
Does the lore [i]directly[/i] contradict this speculation?
No.
Is there sufficient evidence to claim that this idea is fact?
Again, no.
Edit 2: Added 7. Source: Book of Sorrow XLV.[/quote]
This is the only real solid evidence you have and you explained it so poorly. They mention dragon promises.
It is my theory that the ahamkara and worms are related. Not one and the same but closely related.
I more just have a problem with how poorly you try to make your point
English
-
Great job you dissected a man's work and made it look like crap. *Golf clap*. It sounds like to me that you're one of those looking down the noses people who declare what they think is crap and what they think is good evidence. Until Bungie holds a lore stream and puts this all to rest I say just leave it be. In my opinion which may very well mean nothing to you by which I do not care, your post was utterly rude and disrespectful. You sliced up his post and basically smashed each and every point into the ground with your own speculation which may very well be wrong. If someone makes a post and you realize that it doesn't match your specific beliefs then just go make your own post please. No dissection of hard work needed just simply make another post that explains your views.
-
Like I explained to OP a poor argument weakens the main point. This has far more to do with my ocd than my ego. Point by point I just find to be the easiest way to explain. If you think my tone was rude ok that wasn't intentional but just doing what I did isn't. That's how a discussion works. Point counterpoint. My goal was to strengthen his argument anyways since I do agree he just proved it poorly or left out healthy skepticism. His main point was there isn't enough evidence to support yet he made many assumptions himself and left out the most crucial evidence. A good chunk of my job is reviewing grant proposals where the funding depends on did you correctly support your point. He had not. Also it's far less effort to bolster his post than create my own. It's constructive criticism. Besides this is all opinion mine and his unless we use specific evidence. Your attitude is very odd to me. Your point basically seems to be if I disagree don't discuss it at all make a separate post because disagreeing is rude.
-
Edited by bajgovols15: 6/12/2016 6:21:38 PMThe way you reply sounds like you're looking down on him by doing it point by point. By all means seem rude and high horsed. This is the exact reason I don't come to the Lore section of the forums. Most of the stuff said in Lore section is assumption. If he believes that why does there need to be skepticism? Let the people who respond have the skepticism because if he has it then it just makes his beliefs seem weak if he doesn't present them as if he believes them without a doubt but the skepticism adds doubt into the actual framework of the post and then people don't actually believe what he is saying due to him not being 100% committed to what he is saying.
-
[quote]The way you reply sounds lie, you're looking down on him by doing it point by point. [/quote] If that's it and not even my tone which I can understand then I think you just have unresolved hatred of test corrections from school. Point by point is the most efficient and productive way of addressing an issue. It easier to respond in the fashion from mobile on the move so that I don't have to go back and forth copy and pasting bit by bit I can keep it all on one page. So I'm sorry but I find this reasoning silly if that's it. [quote]By all means seem rude and high horsed. This is the exact reason I don't come to the Lore section of the forums. Most of the stuff said in Lore section is assumption. If he believes that why does there need to be skepticism? Let the people who respond have the skepticism because if he has it then it just makes his beliefs seem weak if he doesn't present them as if he believes them without a doubt but the skepticism adds doubt into the actual framework of the post and then people don't actually believe what he is saying due to him not being 100% committed to what he is saying.[/quote] The whole point of his post isn't just to put out his opinion. Read it. His goal is clearly to make a point strong enough to remove doubt and discredit another theory. His goal is to discredit another opinion. I responded in kind. Except I'm not even disproving him im trying to strengthen his argument so that it account for facts. If he has unfounded claims he needs to admit or remove them if he wants to convince more people. He is trying to establish a point of fact on the lore over other opinions. I really don't know how to better explain this. If he was just putting out a theory I could understand your point of view that it's his opinion it's rude to shit all over it but that wasn't his point. He wanted his post to be the authority on the question. I tried to strengthen his argument but having him better support his strongest evidence and throw out or acknowledge his weaker evidence or misinformation.
-
I know what I wrote. I don't need you to repeat it back to me. Write out a paragraph explaining your reasoning to counter an argument. It seemed like you were dissecting it not strengthening it when I read it and it still does. Then don't do it on your phone or tablet. It just looks wrong on the Internet to me and it looks like a dissection. Send a private message. A very long private message.
-
[quote]I know what I wrote. I don't need you to repeat it back to me. Write out a paragraph explaining your reasoning to counter an argument. [/quote] [quote]Then don't do it on your phone or tablet.[/quote] This is the easiest way for me to respond. I rarely have access to a computer regularly. Frankly I don't care if you disapprove of my style of writing or responding. Like I said if you have a problem with my tone I already said that could come off mean, but this format argument is silly. Ignore it or don't respond I don't particularly care. [quote]It seemed like you were dissecting it not strengthening it when I read it and it still does. It just looks wrong on the Internet to me and it looks like a dissection. Send a private message. A very long private message.[/quote] Dissection: very detailed analysis of a text or idea. Then yes I was dissecting. He went point by point I responded in kind and went point by point. His OP now has stronger arguments edited due to my response. So again is it my tone? Because im done having this stupid format argument. This is a public forum. He put a theory criticizing another and I criticized his. My arguments are just as up for scrutiny as his. It would be worse in my opinion to confine it to private message as that defeats the entire purpose of public corroboration on ideas. This is all opinion meaning the only way to judge how accurate something is is by peer review and sourcing information. It's called constructive criticism dude. This isn't a kids recital or art project where you're supposed to be supportive and cultivate a talent. This is a debate. His OP framed it as a debate. I debated back. Only difference is I agree and took issue with how poorly his argument was rather than arguing against his point. This is more commonly known as devils advocate. I don't really have anything left to say. I came at his post as if I was grading a paper. That's not rude it's how you properly analyze an argument.
-
Wow. Didn't expect it to last this long. And yes I got bored on the forums and struck up a meaningless discussion.
-
Then go troll somewhere else
-
Edited by J dub0928: 6/9/2016 7:20:05 AMAnyone arguing about the biology of dragons cannot be correct. They are mythical and there are many versions of them. Also, I'm not sure you disproved any of OP points.
-
My goal wasn't to disprove his point. I agree the worms and ahamkara are different. I just thought his arguments needed refinement
-
Couldn't dragons have worm God blessings without being different? Oryx' court seems similar.
-
Edited by Kone19ps: 6/9/2016 5:27:37 AMThey could but with how similar the worm gods are with their dead familiar, speech pattern, and behavior parallels as well as references in the armor text I think the worms are altered ahamkara. Or at least from the same species. My own biology education puts a distinct difference between worms and dragons as potential reptiles/dinosaurs/birds anatomically but bungie doesn't adhere to strict science much so I'm inclined not to trust that. Unless the influence of the deep is that consistent across multiple species
-
I admit I've only skimmed the grim, not studied it. Still seems to me that in sci fi land you see similarities in scope everywhere. The hive evolve. Why not worms? Moreover, why wouldn't the worms/Ahamkara (as the predecessor race wielding power) guide hive evolution along lines the worms are already familiar with?
-
Thank you for pointing out some errors. They will be corrected shortly. However, you sadly missed my point in the piece, which is to point that the idea that the Ahamkara are the Worm Gods (in part or whole) CANNOT be found in the lore. It is not heavily implied and only small references to a connection can be found. These connections are undoubtable, but are far from conclusive. When talking about this subject, we must remember we are speculating. You quoted my first edit, which states my position on this.
-
Oh I didn't miss it that's why I agreed they are not the same. But If your argument doesn't hold up then the overall point is weakened. You easily could have made your point with substantial evidence. If this thread enlightened you to that info good on you. No shame in learning. I'm in the medical research field and when you write a grant if your evidence doesn't support your main point you don't get funded. So I kinda took the same approach with your post.
-
I don't believe your counter argument actually states anything wrong with my argument, barring the first point. If you would like for me to show you why I think so then I will. My studies are in English, particularly scholarly logical analysis and I write papers on what we can and cannot believe in stories quite frequently, with some published success. I had an original piece establishing a counter argument in the book Legend of Sleepy Hollow that, to my belief, had yet to be discussed before. In NO WAY do I wish to discredit you or your analytical ability, my girlfriend is a nurse, for example, and I enjoy discussing her work with her quite often. You brought up your credentials and I thought it wise to give you mine, out of mutual respect.
-
[quote]1. The proper term for dragon is Wyrm, not Worm. While some archaic texts do not make this distinction, it should be known that in modern terminology it is improper. This has nothing to do with how Bungie may use language, but is a rule of the language we are dealing with.[/quote] Unfortunately it does. Bungie is as fallible as any person and not following the modern wyrm distinction could be intentional or knowing bungie even purposeful. [quote]2. The Hive Worm Gods have larvae, which look like worms. Dragons are reptiles. They do not have larva. Whether the dragons in this story do or not, we are given no indication to stray from the nearly global belief that dragons are reptilian and lay eggs that hatch into dragons.[/quote] I'll refer you to the concept art. There just is no basis for claiming a norm with this. This concept doesn't even have wings. The armor itself doesn't have very distinct anatomy besides the hunter spine but even that clearly differs. With the "confirmation" the batadactyls aren't ahamkara that was the main connection with the spine so we really don't know their consistency of morphology and it would actually be worse to assume a reptilian model based on this. [quote]4. They were killed by guardians to believed extinction, which doesn't suggest the power that the Hive Gods possessed. The idea that an individual Ahamkara could have been more powerful than the others is not implausible, but is far from founded.[/quote] If your point is just they aren't worm gods then yes you've made your point here I just wouldn't include the "but far from founded." The worms clearly have a growth cycle and therefore power scale. They aren't equal there is no reason to think they would be. Even the established worm gods weren't equal. [quote]5. Akka, a Hive Worm God, is KNOWN to have had a carapace, something Dragons DO NOT HAVE. This is data we have and can use.[/quote] Again look at the concept art. A turtle shell is a carapace. An insect can have a carapace as well as a worm. They differ in structure with bone and chitin as well as both but carapace is far from implausible. You gotta get the European dragon image out of your head for this. [quote]6. Akka's Carapace was larger than the Dreadnaught. Ahamkara bones decorate Guardians. The disparity between the two is so great that an individual piece of evidence would be needed to link the two.[/quote] Size implies age and power. Worms are of various sizes already. We have yet to see one other than non symbiotic larvae. But we know they have other sizes. The disparity is notably to not be worm gods but same species is plausible with worms being the size of an arm and the smallest spine head being at least the size of a human head. To note I am running off the theory the worm gods are ahamakara altered by their covenant with the deep. As well as the concept art. [quote]7. The Books of Sorrow specifically mention a group known as 'Dragons' that have favor with the Worm Gods. This difference HEAVILY implies that the two entities are distinct. In conclusion, a connection between the Worm Gods and Ahamkara is suggested, but NEVER stated. In addition, any attempt that suggests they are the same ACCORDING TO the grimoire grossly misconstrues information and must rely on some form of unfounded assumption. Edit 1: Is it beyond reason to believe that Ahamkara and the Worms are the same? No. Does the lore [i]directly[/i] contradict this speculation? No. Is there sufficient evidence to claim that this idea is INDISPUTABLE fact? Again, no. Edit 2: Added 7. Source: Book of Sorrow XLV. Edit 3: Clarified potential misreadings.[/quote] Honestly I'd just copy that card here it would be far more powerful evidence to show the disconnect
-
Edited by IamMythHunter: 6/9/2016 4:52:11 AMThat's my final reply, thank you for being civil and helping with [b]many[/b] issues. Edit: many
-
Edited by IamMythHunter: 6/9/2016 4:37:53 AMThe Carapace argument needs backing. I understand that. However, we know the Ahamkara have bones (exotics) and that worms have carapaces. Considering the fact that the word used is 'worm' and we are discussing carapaces it would be deemed most logical, with all internal evidence, to assume that the Worm God was indeed a worm. Edit: Oh, and we know the Carapace was made of chitin. In addition, we know the worms grow when they get older and more powerful, what we don't know is that the Ahamkara are the worms. Working strictly off what we have, we know the Worm larva came from the Worm Gods, which some claim to be ahamkara. If the dragons of Venus are little Worm Gods we have a huge discrepency on our hands.
-
Actually thinking about it you'd want to specify chitin carapace. Reptiles if you are going with that and even with my interpretation dinosaurs also have carapaces but they are ossified bone or keratin. Chitin is typically seen in invertebrates such as worms.
-
I think I will. Thank you again.
-
Edited by IamMythHunter: 6/9/2016 4:39:58 AMMy distinction of Worm from Wyrm is trivial. I don't intend for it to be strong, just something to keep in the back of the mind. There is a difference. Bungie hasn't used it. It could be because they didn't want to or it could be because they didn't want the Worm Gods to be dragons. In the end it either helps my argument or is a neutral point.
-
With my comparison of Akka and the Ahamkara. The only Ahamkara of which we can see the size are not as large as Akka. We know the size of Akka We vaguely know the size of the Ahamkara. (They lived on Venus and it took around twenty guardians to kill). Again, with all the data we know, they are nowhere near the same size. (Sub-planetary vs. Moon sized). That's my point.
-
Thank you for that. I really appreciate it. However, I will insist that the assumption of basic reptilian life cycle is indeed justified. The word Dragon has a dictionary definition of reptilian, if not reptile. Bungie may defer from this, but in every culture from Japanese, Chinese, Middle Eastern, Russian, European, and Native American (Aztec, I think), a dragon is reptilian. I will respond with one post for each one of the things I would argue against.
-
Of course. I meant to bring it up more to frame my state of mind coming at your post a little better. I browsed some of your corrections I'll edit in anything I think I may have not been clear enough in a minute. On a chocolate run for my gf lol
