Previous
<<The entire world is nothing but shades of Gray. What is deemed proper and correct now, will be out-moded as time pasts by. And things that were deemed proper before but is improper now, will become proper in the future again.>>
Could the world seem to be shades of Gray only because that's how you happen to see it, not how it really is? I dunno about you but, when I look at human society I see an exponential evolution of ethics and humanitarianism over the last centuary.
I prefer to see human society as evolving towards a more civilized and just institution. Sure we've had our share of horrors over the decades, but we've allso seen our share of unrivaled triumphs and accomplishments. What you see as a waning and waxing of "properness" is really the birth pains of an enlightened culture.
I tend to see the world in shades of Black, White AND Gray. I'm a true relativist. Some things are Black, some White and some things are Grey. Nothing is all Black all White or all Gray all the time. It's funny you'll have self-proclaimed relativists choosing to see the world in one collor, Gray. They chastise stupid "Black and White" thinkers as being narrow-minded and obstinate, however they too demonstrate a narrow-mindedness in their out of hand rejection of Black and White perspectives.
Just my two kronars.
THE MEISTRO
MEISTRO
LENNONJON
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/27/2003 03:15 PM CST
<<I still don't get the idea where you think I have a problem with this. Perhaps you've misunderstood or misrepresented something I've said in the past?>>
No no, now you misunderstand. I wasn't refering to you. If you are interested in some up-to-date RL readings on the topic let me know. I won't post the info here because there are some who piss and moan any time I mention RL.
--Just a "clueless" Squire
No no, now you misunderstand. I wasn't refering to you. If you are interested in some up-to-date RL readings on the topic let me know. I won't post the info here because there are some who piss and moan any time I mention RL.
--Just a "clueless" Squire
BYRONN
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/28/2003 12:46 AM CST
I actually like the OOC references, but then again, I don't make much sense.
Oh, and sooner or later I'm going to post something on here that will make everyone see that my white t-shirt is really white and not a shade of gray! This I vow by my... um... uh... oh nevermind.
Oh, and sooner or later I'm going to post something on here that will make everyone see that my white t-shirt is really white and not a shade of gray! This I vow by my... um... uh... oh nevermind.
OLDTIMER
Re: You people think too 20th century
02/28/2003 09:59 PM CST
for the most part posting book names is not an issue, well except maybe one or two people. What is an issue is blanket statements made on RL examples whose foundation and truth are fundamentally in question. In which case the purpose of these boards becomes subverted, for a respondant can not fully address the statement made within the guidelines applied to these boards.
As a person I don't mind debating RL issues or RL examples but that can not be done properly within the structure we are to adhere to here. So it does irk me when folks ignore the rules governing our posting here.
So post the book names or if you would be so kind send em on to my play.net mail. I am curious, of course.
Thing is the nature of good and evil can be debated within the context of the game environment alone and has been done before.
Daython
As a person I don't mind debating RL issues or RL examples but that can not be done properly within the structure we are to adhere to here. So it does irk me when folks ignore the rules governing our posting here.
So post the book names or if you would be so kind send em on to my play.net mail. I am curious, of course.
Thing is the nature of good and evil can be debated within the context of the game environment alone and has been done before.
Daython
MEISTRO
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/02/2003 10:09 PM CST
Heh, what about all the folks who "piss and moan" because THEY CAN'T DISCUSS the issue without bringing up trivial and irrelevant "RL Issues".
::Hums::
But seriously, some people use so called "RL Issues" to take cheap-shots at OOC things like religion and politics. Why we all may not agree, why do we have to dig up muck just to sling it in someones face when the discussion goes south on us? If you can't keep up in the argument, just cut your losses and move on, no need to start bringing in all these other "RL examples" to try and dig yourself out of a hole. I'm not suggesting we can't make any reference to OOC subjects or make a few minor allusions to RL examples. However, we can do better than to dedicate an entire post to backhanded stabs at controversial RL subjects. Which is what typically happens when someone has to revert to "RL examples".
The MEISTRO
::Hums::
But seriously, some people use so called "RL Issues" to take cheap-shots at OOC things like religion and politics. Why we all may not agree, why do we have to dig up muck just to sling it in someones face when the discussion goes south on us? If you can't keep up in the argument, just cut your losses and move on, no need to start bringing in all these other "RL examples" to try and dig yourself out of a hole. I'm not suggesting we can't make any reference to OOC subjects or make a few minor allusions to RL examples. However, we can do better than to dedicate an entire post to backhanded stabs at controversial RL subjects. Which is what typically happens when someone has to revert to "RL examples".
The MEISTRO
LENNONJON
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/03/2003 03:03 PM CST
Wow that has to be one of the most rediculous things I have ever read. Using RL examples to illustrate a point or perspective is a much more sound strategy than relying on the utterances that spew forth from various dark orafices. To simply make a statement with no background or support shows at first glance ignorance of the subject matter, and at second look laziness in an attempt to formulate a coherant argument. Like it or not the form RL takes is relevent to the way DR progresses. RL examples helps to illustrate vauge points or intangible constructs (such as morality). To ignore RL issues because they are "RL" is rediculous beyond belief (especially on an OOC message board). All of the issues brought up from RL that have been posted from both perspectives have thus far contributed to the discussion. What doesn't contribute are individuals who whine because people are talking about books or people that they themselves have not read, and as such bitch about their mention. Just because you don't see their relevance does not mean it is missing.
Ohh and Daython in response to your last message, you know I enjoy all your posts, even ones that I do not agree with. I always enjoy debating perspectives with you, because you are not one of those who becomes petty and nitpicky. My last posts were not directed at you. I am just tired of those others who can't seem to understand that just because one challenges their perspective it does not mean that they are making personal attacks against them.
I will put together a list of book titles for you and a few others, Daython. The will be sent to you within the next couple days.
--Just a "clueless" Squire
Ohh and Daython in response to your last message, you know I enjoy all your posts, even ones that I do not agree with. I always enjoy debating perspectives with you, because you are not one of those who becomes petty and nitpicky. My last posts were not directed at you. I am just tired of those others who can't seem to understand that just because one challenges their perspective it does not mean that they are making personal attacks against them.
I will put together a list of book titles for you and a few others, Daython. The will be sent to you within the next couple days.
--Just a "clueless" Squire
PTAH
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/03/2003 03:34 PM CST
<<Wow that has to be one of the most rediculous things I have ever read. Using RL examples to illustrate a point or perspective is a much more sound strategy than relying on the utterances that spew forth from various dark orafices. To simply make a statement with no background or support shows at first glance ignorance of the subject matter, and at second look laziness in an attempt to formulate a coherant argument.>>
Call me rediculous but I think Meistro has a point. You don't have to reference real life subjects and real life examples to make a cogent argument, especially when the subject were discussing isn't real life to begin with.
<<RL examples helps to illustrate vauge points or intangible constructs (such as morality).>>
One could argue that RL examples arn't the best and most credible way to illustrate the vauge points and intangible constructs your referring too. (Especially morallity)What I personally have discovered is that exmaples and illustrations of morallity do nothing but convilude the discussion. Basically we're arguing abstract concepts adapted to a fantasy world, with scientific theory only plausible and accepted in our modern Real World.
The best way to discuss the issue is to through away our modern scientific theories and have an intellectual discussion based on the premise of the oringinal subject. In other words, let's talk abstract concepts with abstract thought and reasoning. No matter how you try to argue it or what you say, it's impossible to prove or disprove morallity through a process of science. Why? Because it's an issue of higher thinking an abstraction that may be true despite proof by science.
<<To ignore RL issues because they are "RL" is rediculous beyond belief (especially on an OOC message board). All of the issues brought up from RL that have been posted from both perspectives have thus far contributed to the discussion. What doesn't contribute are individuals who whine because people are talking about books or people that they themselves have not read, and as such bitch about their mention. Just because you don't see their relevance does not mean it is missing.>>
I agree, but sometimes people use these examples to through "Cheap shots" at controversial subjects. I can see Meistro's point.
Brittany... (the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)
Call me rediculous but I think Meistro has a point. You don't have to reference real life subjects and real life examples to make a cogent argument, especially when the subject were discussing isn't real life to begin with.
<<RL examples helps to illustrate vauge points or intangible constructs (such as morality).>>
One could argue that RL examples arn't the best and most credible way to illustrate the vauge points and intangible constructs your referring too. (Especially morallity)What I personally have discovered is that exmaples and illustrations of morallity do nothing but convilude the discussion. Basically we're arguing abstract concepts adapted to a fantasy world, with scientific theory only plausible and accepted in our modern Real World.
The best way to discuss the issue is to through away our modern scientific theories and have an intellectual discussion based on the premise of the oringinal subject. In other words, let's talk abstract concepts with abstract thought and reasoning. No matter how you try to argue it or what you say, it's impossible to prove or disprove morallity through a process of science. Why? Because it's an issue of higher thinking an abstraction that may be true despite proof by science.
<<To ignore RL issues because they are "RL" is rediculous beyond belief (especially on an OOC message board). All of the issues brought up from RL that have been posted from both perspectives have thus far contributed to the discussion. What doesn't contribute are individuals who whine because people are talking about books or people that they themselves have not read, and as such bitch about their mention. Just because you don't see their relevance does not mean it is missing.>>
I agree, but sometimes people use these examples to through "Cheap shots" at controversial subjects. I can see Meistro's point.
Brittany... (the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)
HANESB
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/03/2003 04:48 PM CST
Summed up:
Some real life sources are relevant to discussions about DR, as long as they discuss subjects in which DR and real life are identical. (Such as all psychology, and much of, but not all, philosophy, economics, and sociology.)
All DR sources are relevant to discussions about DR.
All conclusions from made with premises founded in the above are relevent to discussions about DR.
Rule of thumb: If you don't want to read about it, don't.
Player of Linras Cauldrath
Some real life sources are relevant to discussions about DR, as long as they discuss subjects in which DR and real life are identical. (Such as all psychology, and much of, but not all, philosophy, economics, and sociology.)
All DR sources are relevant to discussions about DR.
All conclusions from made with premises founded in the above are relevent to discussions about DR.
Rule of thumb: If you don't want to read about it, don't.
Player of Linras Cauldrath
OLDTIMER
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/03/2003 07:15 PM CST
Yea I know it can get difficult to properly explain some points without some form of RL reference. At those times I often just let it go and try a new tact.
In the end I think the more pertinent question is what does morality mean in DR.
Now if you will recall this was gone through at some length about a year ago. I didn't archive my writings on it, I don't know if anyone else did. I recall there being about 6 folks in the debate and I think it went remarkably well.
In essence the attempt is to take IG references etc to formulate the hypothesis of the culture of DR. The main bone of contention seems to be between the balance theorists and the , well for lack of a better term, the black and white folks. Some balance theorists that hold to the all immortals must be honored do not consider the negative aspects to be evil incarnations, I being more on the black and white side consider them to be evil for their end goal is to create chaos. So in a way of speaking a balance theorist could possibly consider my actions of attacking a specific dark aspect as being immoral, where on the other hand I would consider the protection of one of these deities as being immoral.
Daython
In the end I think the more pertinent question is what does morality mean in DR.
Now if you will recall this was gone through at some length about a year ago. I didn't archive my writings on it, I don't know if anyone else did. I recall there being about 6 folks in the debate and I think it went remarkably well.
In essence the attempt is to take IG references etc to formulate the hypothesis of the culture of DR. The main bone of contention seems to be between the balance theorists and the , well for lack of a better term, the black and white folks. Some balance theorists that hold to the all immortals must be honored do not consider the negative aspects to be evil incarnations, I being more on the black and white side consider them to be evil for their end goal is to create chaos. So in a way of speaking a balance theorist could possibly consider my actions of attacking a specific dark aspect as being immoral, where on the other hand I would consider the protection of one of these deities as being immoral.
Daython
PTAH
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/03/2003 08:15 PM CST
I think I have that thread archived, I'll have to search for it though.
I would also just like to add something to what Linras said. I personally don't see anything wrong with citing OOC references. I just think people go way overboard when using examples and illustrations. I think more than anything we should keep such references at a mininum, not because I think people here arn't smart enough to comprehend them, but because they confuse the issue more than help it.
What starts off as a discussion or debate about DR subjects quickly de-evolves into a personal argument about RL issues. When you cite such things as the crusades or the hollocaust to reinforce your opinions about morallity and religion, well you can immagine how the debate would degenerate. I contend there is no need for this.
Brittany (..the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)
I would also just like to add something to what Linras said. I personally don't see anything wrong with citing OOC references. I just think people go way overboard when using examples and illustrations. I think more than anything we should keep such references at a mininum, not because I think people here arn't smart enough to comprehend them, but because they confuse the issue more than help it.
What starts off as a discussion or debate about DR subjects quickly de-evolves into a personal argument about RL issues. When you cite such things as the crusades or the hollocaust to reinforce your opinions about morallity and religion, well you can immagine how the debate would degenerate. I contend there is no need for this.
Brittany (..the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)
NEELD
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/04/2003 09:30 AM CST
Although it is well and good to theorize using any number of references (RL and DR), the "black and white" question has been answered by the Paladin Guild. Simply put we serve all the gods but do not promote the goals of the dark aspects of each god. A discussion on what this means appears to be relevent at this point.
Madigan
Madigan
BYRONN
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/04/2003 10:29 AM CST
>>>Simply put we serve all the gods but do not promote the goals of the dark aspects of each god. A discussion on what this means appears to be relevent at this point.
>>Some balance theorists that hold to the all immortals must be honored do not consider the negative aspects to be evil incarnations, I being more on the black and white side consider them to be evil for their end goal is to create chaos.
These are the cruxes of my clumsy hammering of morality and ethics in DR. As a Paladin, we are called to be servants of Perfect Order, and enemies of chaos, which are represented best in the undead, yes, but certain dark aspects seem to represent this force of chaos. Alduth, Huldah and Trothfang (intresting how we have Trothfang's Rally, hmm?) for example can be seen as patrons of chaos. It is in many ways our duty to stop the actions of these aspects, like the needless waste of life, the promotion of pain, etc.
>>Some balance theorists that hold to the all immortals must be honored do not consider the negative aspects to be evil incarnations, I being more on the black and white side consider them to be evil for their end goal is to create chaos.
These are the cruxes of my clumsy hammering of morality and ethics in DR. As a Paladin, we are called to be servants of Perfect Order, and enemies of chaos, which are represented best in the undead, yes, but certain dark aspects seem to represent this force of chaos. Alduth, Huldah and Trothfang (intresting how we have Trothfang's Rally, hmm?) for example can be seen as patrons of chaos. It is in many ways our duty to stop the actions of these aspects, like the needless waste of life, the promotion of pain, etc.
OLDTIMER
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/04/2003 11:31 AM CST
<< Although it is well and good to theorize using any number of references (RL and DR), the "black and white" question has been answered by the Paladin Guild. Simply put we serve all the gods but do not promote the goals of the dark aspects of each god. A discussion on what this means appears to be relevent at this point.
>>
Smiles... well in an IC sense Day kinda thinks those folks are being a bit cowardly. They are afraid to call the negative aspects evil for they fear their wrath. Day think the dark aspects are evil and will do all he can to thwart them and depend on the mercy and protection of Rutilor and Chadatru if things go south. He has good reason to believe this. During the Sorrow war when the foul spirits were assilaing his group he prayed to Chadatru and the avatar came and drove the foes away. He then stood eye to eye with the avatar and was marked with the claws of the Lion.
As a person I disagree with the balance theory being promoted as "the correct answer". That is probably the most limiting perspective to take. And it certainly starts to mostly rule out, if not completely, one of the most classic storylines of mythical lore. As in good mortal hero aided by good immortal goes to fight evil immortal with the chance of killing the nasty thing. But if by killing the nasty thing you also kill the whole of the three aspects then what is the point? Honestly the balance theory as "the answer" really negates the pure of purpose thing as well. Let's face it, the things the dark aspects like to do are pure chaos, and that is what we were sent here to beat down. Suffice it to say I am a fan of the Iliad.
<< and enemies of chaos, which are represented best in the undead, yes, but certain dark aspects seem to represent this force of chaos. >>
Well, kinda. Undead are abominations, which is evil in a specific way, as in all the immortals light or dark despise the undead. And yes dark aspects represent chaos, don't let the balance movement sway your understanding.
<< (intresting how we have Trothfang's Rally, hmm?) >>
It is a name and nothing more. As in Trothfang didn't exactly give it to us. It is most likely more a reflection of the old bleeding penatly as well as the images from lore that depict Trothfang dancing over cities in battle. Hence a spell that increases our balance is probably aptly named.
\
<< It is in many ways our duty to stop the actions of these aspects, like the needless waste of life, the promotion of pain, etc. >>
That is how I read our charter as well.
Daython
>>
Smiles... well in an IC sense Day kinda thinks those folks are being a bit cowardly. They are afraid to call the negative aspects evil for they fear their wrath. Day think the dark aspects are evil and will do all he can to thwart them and depend on the mercy and protection of Rutilor and Chadatru if things go south. He has good reason to believe this. During the Sorrow war when the foul spirits were assilaing his group he prayed to Chadatru and the avatar came and drove the foes away. He then stood eye to eye with the avatar and was marked with the claws of the Lion.
As a person I disagree with the balance theory being promoted as "the correct answer". That is probably the most limiting perspective to take. And it certainly starts to mostly rule out, if not completely, one of the most classic storylines of mythical lore. As in good mortal hero aided by good immortal goes to fight evil immortal with the chance of killing the nasty thing. But if by killing the nasty thing you also kill the whole of the three aspects then what is the point? Honestly the balance theory as "the answer" really negates the pure of purpose thing as well. Let's face it, the things the dark aspects like to do are pure chaos, and that is what we were sent here to beat down. Suffice it to say I am a fan of the Iliad.
<< and enemies of chaos, which are represented best in the undead, yes, but certain dark aspects seem to represent this force of chaos. >>
Well, kinda. Undead are abominations, which is evil in a specific way, as in all the immortals light or dark despise the undead. And yes dark aspects represent chaos, don't let the balance movement sway your understanding.
<< (intresting how we have Trothfang's Rally, hmm?) >>
It is a name and nothing more. As in Trothfang didn't exactly give it to us. It is most likely more a reflection of the old bleeding penatly as well as the images from lore that depict Trothfang dancing over cities in battle. Hence a spell that increases our balance is probably aptly named.
\
<< It is in many ways our duty to stop the actions of these aspects, like the needless waste of life, the promotion of pain, etc. >>
That is how I read our charter as well.
Daython
LENNONJON
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/04/2003 11:40 AM CST
<<Call me rediculous but I think Meistro has a point. You don't have to reference real life subjects and real life examples to make a cogent argument, especially when the subject were discussing isn't real life to begin with>>
Once you show me a DR without RL references then I will conceed the point. Until then my contention is that everything that goes on in DR is based on some extent to ideas, concepts, and topics taken from RL and extended or adapted to life in DR. Arguing a point from abstraction is all well and good, however, if there is other support to aid the perspective or move the discussion my belief is that it should be offered and not ignored.
--Just a "clueless" Squire
Once you show me a DR without RL references then I will conceed the point. Until then my contention is that everything that goes on in DR is based on some extent to ideas, concepts, and topics taken from RL and extended or adapted to life in DR. Arguing a point from abstraction is all well and good, however, if there is other support to aid the perspective or move the discussion my belief is that it should be offered and not ignored.
--Just a "clueless" Squire
PTAH
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/04/2003 07:08 PM CST
My particular opinion is that upon the bestowment of the gifts, our guild patron, Rutilor, organized the gifted into the Paladin's guild. There he gave us a purpose and calling and taught us the concept of honor, a manner of discipline and living which would serve as a basis for the path we were called to walk.
Over the millennia the gifts have continued to be bestowed upon the next generation of paladins. I believe this is a sign that the guild still pleases the gods, and that our role is valued by ALL 13. Light and Dark. One reason I would offer as to why ALL 13 still favor us is because our guild is not built around the furtherance of religion. Instead it's built around a universal concern of all 13, the protection of Elathania and the establishment of order.
I look at it like this. The Light gods see a need to instill value and honor into the world to prevent suffering and promote a general sense of good. They probably would realize such an undertaking would require a strong form of moral and just order. To this end they empower and bless the guild, knowing that the preservation of life, society, and virtue are of the utmost importance.
The dark gods see a need to install order and form to the world. While they may personally see no harm in acts of theft, murder, or torture. They understand that permitting these actions on a global scale would be catastrophic to their goals. In that sense they themselves recognize the value of an honor code, and as long as they are not obligated to follow it, see no problem in enforcing it upon mortals. Because, after all, it serves the ends of the truly important, namely themselves.
Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)
Over the millennia the gifts have continued to be bestowed upon the next generation of paladins. I believe this is a sign that the guild still pleases the gods, and that our role is valued by ALL 13. Light and Dark. One reason I would offer as to why ALL 13 still favor us is because our guild is not built around the furtherance of religion. Instead it's built around a universal concern of all 13, the protection of Elathania and the establishment of order.
I look at it like this. The Light gods see a need to instill value and honor into the world to prevent suffering and promote a general sense of good. They probably would realize such an undertaking would require a strong form of moral and just order. To this end they empower and bless the guild, knowing that the preservation of life, society, and virtue are of the utmost importance.
The dark gods see a need to install order and form to the world. While they may personally see no harm in acts of theft, murder, or torture. They understand that permitting these actions on a global scale would be catastrophic to their goals. In that sense they themselves recognize the value of an honor code, and as long as they are not obligated to follow it, see no problem in enforcing it upon mortals. Because, after all, it serves the ends of the truly important, namely themselves.
Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)
BYRONN
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/04/2003 07:12 PM CST
Heh, and the neutral? Where do they fit into this?
PTAH
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/04/2003 10:32 PM CST
There are no such things as "neutral" gods. There are only dark and light aspects of a particular Immortal. Some people like to claim that the primary aspect or the Immortal proper, represents a "neutral" aspect. While I won't argue with them, mostly because I prefer to keep my scope of interest limited to issues of light and dark, I wouldn't neccesarily claim that to be gospel truth.
Really, I think the Immortals are the Immortals. None are perfect, or all powerfull. So they have good sides and bad sides. Some Elanthians choose to venerate specific aspects of the Immortals, this is where i theorize that alot of different Elanthian religions immerge from. They may worship the same immortal but they have different teachings about who the immortal is and what the immortal trully represents. The aspects may in fact be different interpretations of the same being even though diametrically opposed religons may dispute that.
This is not to say that we should lump every primary aspect as being "Nuetral" in itself. I for one prefer to think some Immortals are more moral and good than others, despite the aspects that others choose to worship. For instance Chadatru the primary aspect of Rutilor and Trothfang, seems to be strikingly "Light" in nature.
Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)
Really, I think the Immortals are the Immortals. None are perfect, or all powerfull. So they have good sides and bad sides. Some Elanthians choose to venerate specific aspects of the Immortals, this is where i theorize that alot of different Elanthian religions immerge from. They may worship the same immortal but they have different teachings about who the immortal is and what the immortal trully represents. The aspects may in fact be different interpretations of the same being even though diametrically opposed religons may dispute that.
This is not to say that we should lump every primary aspect as being "Nuetral" in itself. I for one prefer to think some Immortals are more moral and good than others, despite the aspects that others choose to worship. For instance Chadatru the primary aspect of Rutilor and Trothfang, seems to be strikingly "Light" in nature.
Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Darkbrook)
ANDRE-BELTRAME
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/06/2003 02:58 PM CST
<<To ignore RL issues because they are "RL" is rediculous beyond belief (especially on an OOC message board). All of the issues brought up from RL that have been posted from both perspectives have thus far contributed to the discussion. What doesn't contribute are individuals who whine because people are talking about books or people that they themselves have not read, and as such bitch about their mention.>>
This is why you got issues Lennon. First you think that the thoughts made up in your mind make so much sense than anyone's else thus they are probably better thoughts, not because they came from your mind but just because somehow they make more sense. Second you are offending the person who said they think RL examples are bad. While other players could post on how they disagree with that and what their point of view was, your post if filled with offensive content and I'm really surprised it didn't get pulled. What is 'rediculous beyond belief' for the 'rediculous beyond belief' may as well be right. And you fail to respect other folks, be they right or wrong, as long as they oppose your view.
Now for the part where you say 'individuals who whine because people are talking about books or people that they themselves have not read, and as such bitch about their mention.' I know that's directed to me because I was the one to poke the book name giving to prove points. And my reply to that is pretty simple, First of all you have no clue about who read what. All you can say about anyone is you, your family and your friends. Of which MOST of us are none. Thus your statement about who read what is not only silly to begin with but also an agressive cheap way of trying to offend someone who's not even in the discussion. Not only cheap for attacking someone that hasn't been even replying your posts, but also for trying to void a point that was made by saying things when the original poster of the point is about.
If that statement wasn't directed to me, then just take it as advice on how you deal with people and how you come through.
The reason I said bringing books up wasn't a good idea is because when you say names of books they make sense to people who read them and even then they may have different meaning for each book means a different thing to each brained reader. Thus, they are not a good way to get your point across. They are a mere way of trying to overwhelm the other person's views with what I call pompous lines. I believe I am smart and wise enough to read Kant , Jung or any other author you can ever name just as well as you can and as any other person reading this post can. I don't judge myself smarter or wiser than anyone. From that point I believe that bringing the jist of what I meant without having to quote a book name is a very good way to show what I read and what I gathered on my own about said book or paper. When Daython asked about my sources from my Parthenon and Egypt posts I gave those not to 'prove' my point because if I read those I was right but to fill his curiosity and to show him that I'm not making statements about real buildings to look good or whatever. Also, if you read those posts you will notice they have my own thoughts about what could have happened and they were 'backed up' by the facts not to prove them but to give a good perspective of why I thought that.
So in the end I think what I'm saying to you is. You're so smart and you got your lectures and you're a psychology teacher of some sort and you read Kant, Jung. Why can't you simply get your point across without having to get books to back you up? I think you CAN.
As far as rl examples show I'll agree with the other person. I believe abstract things can be thought and discussed in abstract terms. When it comes to DR I'll agree that DR should use DR references and not try to use RL examples. Reason why: Could any source you use from Rl examples be used to define something your character acts like or believes? I believe that statement itself is pretty contraditory. Of course we are the master of their minds, but when it comes to roleplaying we should strive to learn things or ways to think and believe things in game from in game sources. Discussions about morality on the boards are good to allow players to play their characters the way they want to and find some sort of backing up for in game things in a line of thought that makes sense in game as well.
In the end all I'm asking is a little more respect towards posts that disagree with yours. Claiming stupidity is the easy way out and you can do better than that.
On a note about Daython, of course you like his posts. They are very logical and well structured. Mostly most of us like his posts. The only posts I don't like is when Daython decides to go claim stupidity and transference and analyze someone's character as if he actually knew WHO he was talking about. We can't really judge anyone from a couple posts. Of course you could say Pureblade is a magic freak but you can't go out claiming John Doe has no integrity and Mary Jane has no character. It sounds too much like judging a book from it's cover. At least from my perspective.
Phanton
ps: No offense meant to Daython at all. Or Lennon.
This is why you got issues Lennon. First you think that the thoughts made up in your mind make so much sense than anyone's else thus they are probably better thoughts, not because they came from your mind but just because somehow they make more sense. Second you are offending the person who said they think RL examples are bad. While other players could post on how they disagree with that and what their point of view was, your post if filled with offensive content and I'm really surprised it didn't get pulled. What is 'rediculous beyond belief' for the 'rediculous beyond belief' may as well be right. And you fail to respect other folks, be they right or wrong, as long as they oppose your view.
Now for the part where you say 'individuals who whine because people are talking about books or people that they themselves have not read, and as such bitch about their mention.' I know that's directed to me because I was the one to poke the book name giving to prove points. And my reply to that is pretty simple, First of all you have no clue about who read what. All you can say about anyone is you, your family and your friends. Of which MOST of us are none. Thus your statement about who read what is not only silly to begin with but also an agressive cheap way of trying to offend someone who's not even in the discussion. Not only cheap for attacking someone that hasn't been even replying your posts, but also for trying to void a point that was made by saying things when the original poster of the point is about.
If that statement wasn't directed to me, then just take it as advice on how you deal with people and how you come through.
The reason I said bringing books up wasn't a good idea is because when you say names of books they make sense to people who read them and even then they may have different meaning for each book means a different thing to each brained reader. Thus, they are not a good way to get your point across. They are a mere way of trying to overwhelm the other person's views with what I call pompous lines. I believe I am smart and wise enough to read Kant , Jung or any other author you can ever name just as well as you can and as any other person reading this post can. I don't judge myself smarter or wiser than anyone. From that point I believe that bringing the jist of what I meant without having to quote a book name is a very good way to show what I read and what I gathered on my own about said book or paper. When Daython asked about my sources from my Parthenon and Egypt posts I gave those not to 'prove' my point because if I read those I was right but to fill his curiosity and to show him that I'm not making statements about real buildings to look good or whatever. Also, if you read those posts you will notice they have my own thoughts about what could have happened and they were 'backed up' by the facts not to prove them but to give a good perspective of why I thought that.
So in the end I think what I'm saying to you is. You're so smart and you got your lectures and you're a psychology teacher of some sort and you read Kant, Jung. Why can't you simply get your point across without having to get books to back you up? I think you CAN.
As far as rl examples show I'll agree with the other person. I believe abstract things can be thought and discussed in abstract terms. When it comes to DR I'll agree that DR should use DR references and not try to use RL examples. Reason why: Could any source you use from Rl examples be used to define something your character acts like or believes? I believe that statement itself is pretty contraditory. Of course we are the master of their minds, but when it comes to roleplaying we should strive to learn things or ways to think and believe things in game from in game sources. Discussions about morality on the boards are good to allow players to play their characters the way they want to and find some sort of backing up for in game things in a line of thought that makes sense in game as well.
In the end all I'm asking is a little more respect towards posts that disagree with yours. Claiming stupidity is the easy way out and you can do better than that.
On a note about Daython, of course you like his posts. They are very logical and well structured. Mostly most of us like his posts. The only posts I don't like is when Daython decides to go claim stupidity and transference and analyze someone's character as if he actually knew WHO he was talking about. We can't really judge anyone from a couple posts. Of course you could say Pureblade is a magic freak but you can't go out claiming John Doe has no integrity and Mary Jane has no character. It sounds too much like judging a book from it's cover. At least from my perspective.
Phanton
ps: No offense meant to Daython at all. Or Lennon.
LENNONJON
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/07/2003 08:34 PM CST
<<This is why you got issues Lennon.>>
The only issuse I see is the one you have with me. Get over it!
--Just a "clueless" Squire
The only issuse I see is the one you have with me. Get over it!
--Just a "clueless" Squire
ANDRE-BELTRAME
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/08/2003 05:34 AM CST
<<<<This is why you got issues Lennon.>>
The only issuse I see is the one you have with me. Get over it!
--Just a "clueless" Squire>>
When you stop referring me on your posts. Sure.
Phanton
The only issuse I see is the one you have with me. Get over it!
--Just a "clueless" Squire>>
When you stop referring me on your posts. Sure.
Phanton
LENNONJON
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/08/2003 05:54 PM CST
<<When you stop referring me on your posts. Sure.>>
Actually, the funny thing was that I never mentioned you by name. I mentioned the individuals who get bent out of shape over RL references. If you want to identify with them thats fine, but thats your decision.
Carry on then...
--Just a "clueless" Squire
Actually, the funny thing was that I never mentioned you by name. I mentioned the individuals who get bent out of shape over RL references. If you want to identify with them thats fine, but thats your decision.
Carry on then...
--Just a "clueless" Squire
ANDRE-BELTRAME
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/09/2003 02:32 PM CST
If you wanna say that and show how false and a coward you are. Not even man enough to admit what you imply.
HANESB
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/09/2003 04:36 PM CST
Unless this conversation is going anywhere halfway constructive, please have the tact to at least take it to conflicts so we can all laugh at you in the proper folder.
Player of Linras Cauldrath
Player of Linras Cauldrath
DR-MAECE
Re: You people think too 20th century
03/10/2003 06:20 PM CST
Please get this thread back on topic or end it.
Thanks!
~Maece
Thanks!
~Maece
