Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Forge Hall' started by marinunesgvazava, May 9, 2018.
But you just said a couple posts ago you were a plunderer. Make up your mind.
I now understand why my Biff gambit paid off, hit a nerve and has potentially led to a personal grievance.
I never moved the argument to feels, that is what ethics is. Unless you can point me to the tool that objectively measures ethics and morals? Ethics and morals are what a person feels is right or wrong. This thread is an excellent example of differing views (feelings) that give us the little bit of objective data that shows how ethics and morals can vary, depending on who you talk to. On the one hand, you argue feelings are often wrong and counterproductive, on the other, we have nothing but ourselves (feelings) to justify our ethical stances or morals. Again, Where is the tool that objectively measures ethics and morals? Are we talking about the laws of man or the laws of a higher being? How is your proclamation objective while somebody else's is not?
I see your appeal to authority/experience and grant you it. I'll abstain from trotting out my resume. I do my best to practice the "stating one's position and then shutting the hell up" for proposals, as we know how fast they devolve in personal opinion shouting matches. I see no issue in sharing knowledge gained from years of experience in other topics.
What worries me is this "I've heard it all, and through it all I've solidified my own philosophy". This is the dismissal I rail against. It strikes me as self-righteous and absolute. By themselves, I view a dismissal from an moral absolutist stance as counterproductive, unless there is an explanation of how and why they arrived to their argument. Repeating that there is "no objective moral component to plundering in FoE (the game was designed for it and encourages it, so it is not a violation of either the letter nor the spirit of the rules, in fact it's quite the opposite; and no real-world harm is done)" doesn't make or convince me that it is true. This why determining the proper framing of the analogy is important for me. If we are arguing from the laws of man, we can tease out the nuance together(As I seeded in my spoiler, we are nearly of the same mind when looking at plundering). If we are arguing from the laws of something higher, then we shouldn't shy away from all that comes out of that Pandora's box.
Regardless of differing opinions, thank you for the back and forth.
I'd vote Nah.
Although, some could argue that dirty thoughts are a sin, so I suppose it depends on who you talk to. I don't like the idea of thought crime. I prefer sticking to punishment/rehabilitation of more serious crimes. Whatever that loaded sentence means.
That's the only tool the plunder moralists have, shame. To be fair, us plunderers tend to shame them right back. So it's a shameful shame fight. Thankfully, the DNSL shuts down the low
If we use virtual words in a virtual space to harass somebody. Is that amoral, moral or immoral?
Mario Kart: If you want to win, You use that banana peel. If the goal is to win, there is a NEED to use it.
Check mate Atheists! Semantics wins yet again!
While it worries me, I can tell you this thinking is not unique or unusual. There is nothing you or I can do to prevent this, but submit to the passage of time and hope the cumulative randomness of the universe leads to the general improvement of human cognition.
No personal grievance at all.
I dismissed nothing except my own participation in further "discussion".
Contrary to what must be popular opinion, people can, through experience and the wisdom of years of contemplation and education, determine at least to their own satisfaction what "is" and what "isn't". Perhaps in the young that's a sign of some kind of lack of cognition; in the old it can be precisely the opposite.
I can understand functional definitions of what "is" and what "isn't" - aka definitions "to their own satisfaction". That's necessary. Much better than fooling yourself into believing you actually "know" much. The best we have is a list of things we are not able to disprove yet, as maddening as that is.
I'm of two minds when it comes to surrendering to the passage of time. I recognize it's inevitable march and my near non-existent significance in the greater cosmos, but I also enjoy being part of that cumulative randomness of the universe that can lead to the improvement of a (or more) human's cognition. My folly is when I get to focused on one facet or individual and lose balance.
It took a few sledgehammer swings on Gravitons part, but I think his message finally got through my thick skull. They've danced this dance and have hung up the dancing shoes (or whatever colorful allegory is more fitting). In my excitement, I forgot my chief purpose was to highlight the balance between critically thinking/questioning of everything and practical ethics/morals.
In the end, I see why people view games in general as separate, because they consciously or unconsciously recognize the difference between stealing a digital game neighbor's stuff versus stealing their literal neighbor's stuff. I enjoy drilling into the specific/nuances of the how/why of those differences. I view plundering as 'immoral', since my moral compass is set to detecting 'transgressions and their affects & effects'. Since I view plundering as a transgression, I judge it 'bad', but since it is a game, the 'bad' value is somewhere between .000001 and .0000000000042, and it may as well be zero[Which is what others argue from the get go]. My hounding of Graviton could be seen as a "Come on! Admit that the bad value is .00000001!" argument, which detracts from my other points.
I blame the lack of a good platform to argue that plundering is an immoral act that merits special consideration. We don't persecute people who step on wild ants (be it accidental or on purpose), for many practical reasons. It's also why hippies, vegetarians, PETA and other related groups are the butt of jokes; their values differ from the 'norm', so they are open to easy ridicule and scorn. For me, it boils down to the value placed on the action and what can or should be done in response to it. On a functional level, Graviton, myself and others are on the same page; Plundering is not something to get bent out of shape over. It's the people who are bent out of shape on plundering that need to spend the most amount of time reflecting on their values and priorities. Justice for all sounds great, but I am wary and critical of who gets to define what justice is.
Anywho, I think I've kicked this can as far I can. Back to my search for a new king to act the Shakespearean fool [With a attempt at Spock-ian logic as a twist] to0.
There's nothing wrong with this. You can choose to make your purpose to have as much of a positive impact as possible, even if that impact is 0.000000001 (a generous figure). At this point, I'm inclined to say that your (or my) effort is best spent doing whatever brings joy to your life, so long as it doesn't require hurting another's ability to do so. Seeing as the portion of reality you have most control over is yourself, you are empowered to make much more impact there than anywhere else, and you benefit the most from that impact.