[Attention] Debate Thread [Archive]

Lordlymight

10-08-2008, 08:19 PM

Good and evil are entirely relative terms.

It is my resolution to show that good and evil can be relatively defined and as such, human beings can be labeled as either good, evil, or ambivalent

Good can be defined as a a person's tendency to be benevolent towards fellow human beings, other creatures, and their environment.

Evil can be described as a person's tendency to be malevolent in the same manner as above.

Ambivalent (also described as selfish, uncaring, and/or senseless) is a state of choosing a course of action based solely on its immediate outcome within one's personal sphere of influence.

It should not take a doctoral thesis to convince you that the vast majority of people are ambivalent. They go about their daily lives concerned only with the sphere within which they live. They do good in order to avoid consequences or to feel good about themselves, they do evil if they feel that can get away with it or if the action doesn't have an outcome that is understood on the broader scope. In general, they live their lives based on what will happen to them if they make one decision or another.

That said, there are historic examples of both good and evil human beings. In addition, it is quite likely you have met people of either persuasion in your day to day life. That teacher who gets by on the scrimp earnings the state pays him or her, but does it because he or she wants to maybe make a few kids grow up to be better people. That sadistic person that thinks beating his wife makes him a better bigger badder man. They are all around us.

To be defined as good, one does not necessarily need to constantly think and act as good. Human-beings are inherently selfish, especially in larger social settings. It is not only common, but utterly prevalent that we have selfish thoughts. In addition, it is not necessarily the case that someone who has committed evil is evil, or for that matter, not good. If we look at the utilitarian concept of "greater good" we can see that occasionally an evil must be committed in order to protect the innocent or helpless. The sheer fact that the person actually considered (and acted upon) the greater good in their decision makes them inherently good.

Evil is very similar. The difference is that to be evil, you are seen as deviant, where as if you are good, you are elevated in the eyes of those you assist. Therefore, being evil is often "explained away" with some sort of mental illness. What others fail to understand is that some people are just evil. It is deviant, but it is not caused by dysfunction. An evil person is quite capable of doing great acts of goodness. this can be seen in the acts of what is most often considered one of the most evil men in modern history, Adolf Hitler. He did great things for his countrymen, great things. Prior to WWII, he was a capable and beloved leader. This does not make him any less evil.

Good and evil are relative terms. The level of good and evil in the world will define who is good and evil. In medieval times, it was not uncommon for men to **** and torture for sport. The common person lived in squaller and was reduced to the status of pack animal. In that day, things that were considered normal are things that today would incite outrage on an international scale. To be good in those days simply required a kind word and a helping hand. Today, the four kind ladies that run the soup kitchen downtown have to literally beg for money to do their great deeds, but those deeds go mostly unnoticed by the greater population.

The reason that there can never be a utopic society is that the definitions of good and evil will continuously shift as society pushes towards its current definition of good.

Our world would be considered an absolute paradise to the peasant of yore (this is a personal assumption based on a rudimentary knowledge of the period). those of us that live in this world see corruption, hatred, malice, and listlessness at every turn. In the future, it could very well be considered an evil act to not donate half your earnings to the poor. It might be considered murder to allow someone to smoke a cigarette. Who can say what the future holds. The good news is that human beings strive for goodness. The push of civilization is almost always positive. Wouldn't it be nice if the most dastardly person you could think of was the guy down the street that forgot to mow his lawn...

smileeloser101

10-08-2008, 08:22 PM

Good question: But uh...Improvement, good, and evil are all a matter of personal definition. And coupled with the fact that you said "I think I've improved" makes it even more so. You might think you've "improved" while the rest of Apoline might still think you're a ...whatever you were. =]

Dr_Feelgood

10-08-2008, 08:22 PM

smileeloser101

10-08-2008, 08:30 PM

Dr_Feelgood

10-08-2008, 08:31 PM

I'm an idiot tonight =/

smileeloser101

10-08-2008, 08:34 PM

Lol USE that brain Dr. You can do it. :]

Dr_Feelgood

10-08-2008, 08:38 PM

HI jUNAU GEVE ME 500 SELVER NOW

smileeloser101

10-08-2008, 08:44 PM

On topic: Anyone? Anyone? Bueller...

Off topic: @Dr. Feelgood- ony if u b00f meh

UzumakiW

10-08-2008, 08:55 PM

I have done some evil things in my time here in Apoline, but I think I have improved. Does it make me evil still?

Nope, you are doing good now, and what's been done in the past hasn't left a huge scar on the world. Doc is a good person.

Edit: That was a great read as usual Lordly. Great views on things, and you make some very solid points in your view of the debate topic. Great job with that.

Soulfrit

10-08-2008, 09:04 PM

Lordy I would fear coming up against you in a debate :eek:

lenore_lurks

10-08-2008, 10:02 PM

Lordly = end of debate.

Lordlymight

10-08-2008, 10:03 PM

Ok how about another question to keep our debate fresh and alive: If the most dastardly deed I'd heard of was about a man who was mower-challenged, how much room would that leave for "good" (benevolent acts as Lordly describes)? Do you (anyone reading this) believe there is a limit on how good something can be? On how low something can sink (evil)?

The breadth of difference between good and evil are as malleable as the acts themselves.

Example:
Now: Really good: A doctor that chooses to travel to a third world nation to administer much needed health care for little to no compensation. Really evil: rampant high school killing spree, slaughtering a large number of students and faculty, all because you got an "F" in shop.

The Past: Really good: A missionary that travels to a third world country to bring civilization to the heathens for little to no compensation. Really evil: The ****, pillaging, and burning of three hundred border villages because your chief rival said you had no honor.

Future (hopefully): Really good: A professor travels to a third world country to bring knowledge and enlightenment to the populace for little to no compensation. Really evil: that ******* forgot to mow his lawn again...

Takimi

10-08-2008, 10:32 PM

Ah, lovely lovely, the long lenthy posts makes me go :D

Now, Doc and others, please don't make spam posts? I would really appreciate it if you contributed instead of making "/debate 10char" posts. I would consider that spam and this thread was made to make those posts NOT appear. ^^

Lordlymight

10-08-2008, 10:48 PM

In the spirit of this thread, which was not created for me to slam the hammer down on discussion, I propose a new topic. While the above statement was my definitive opinion, it was written in reply to posts in other threads. I would like to post something new and fresh that can be discussed from beginning to end. I would also encourage others to do the same.

Question Posed:

What, if any, is the value of war?

Be objectifiable and complete with your thoughts. We live in an age where it is tre chic to hate war, so rather than jump on the band wagon, sit back and think. You may find that you still agree with the bandwagon, but you may discover something else entirely...

Soulfrit

10-08-2008, 11:47 PM

What if, any value, is war?

Personally I don't feel war is of any value, unless I guess.. as an act of retaliation (although it always seems to start in retaliation to something).
It costs lives, lives of people who are proud to serve their country yes, but countless lives that could have been safe at home. (although again, yes, they would have wanted to go ahead that way).
The amount of people destroyed, lives, homes etc gets higher as war goes on, it does no one good.
If war came to my home front, of course, I would expect us to be defended and aided and the people who are willing to fight in the war (1. I'm phsyically unable to and 2. I don't want to) will defend us and I'm proud of them and their sacrifice.

Since that whole bit makes no sense most likely to anyone but me I say..there is no value in war, it simply creates more killing as each side retaliates to whatever the other side has done.

ShonenHero

10-09-2008, 12:27 AM

Lordly is to debates what Helga is to dungeons

What, if any, is the value of war?

Be objectifiable and complete with your thoughts. We live in an age where it is tre chic to hate war, so rather than jump on the band wagon, sit back and think. You may find that you still agree with the bandwagon, but you may discover something else entirely...

Awesome fact is what you stated about hating war in the current times, same as with other things, hating it publicly is a way to make yourself look good. You foretold the "ZOMG WAR IS BAD >:O" posts and shielded against them, good call!

Technically, what war is, is a conflict, a disagreement, carried on by force of arms between nations or parties within a nation (Source: Dictionary.com) There are other types of wars, but of course, that´s the type you´re referring to. Sadly, i would like to be able to say things both for and against the concept of "War", but I think it´ll be the always-present reminder that human being´s primitivity is not likely to go away, and that violence is the way preferred by our instincts (AKA the beasts inside us) to end confilcts.

You can see it everywhere, when you´re annoyed by someone or something, what do you think of first? Yeah, you think about punching that somebody´s face, or kicking him/her really hard in the... ehem, of course one doesn´t do it, there´s lot of factors that stop us from doing it, too many to list them here. But remember that the choice not to punch that someone is yours, of only one person, and remember also, that a person´s stupidity is multiplied for the number of people in the same group as that person (A way of measuring the intelligence of masses which I´m proud of having invented myself). Take it to a huge global scale, and you have wars, the equal of punching that someone in the face (In this case the someone would be a nation or a party). Why is the punch to the face repressed and not the war? Because wars aren´t, sadly, the decision of only one person, as many people think, it´s a whole mentality of entire nations we´re dealing with (Even though blame can be attributed to the people who actually have the power to stop them, but don´t, I´ll give you that)

Gee, I´ve reached the end of my post, and i completely overlooked the "Value" thingy ^^P *Scratches back of head* Oh well, I`ll think about it, but I seriously think I have any definition for the "Value" of war... we`ll see...

DF001

10-09-2008, 01:26 AM

noob =/= lordlymight

lenore_lurks

10-09-2008, 05:25 AM

War, is something nations use for profit. It destroys lives, families, and futures. It Annihilates the environment, not simply in the area the physical war takes place, but in the areas being mined for metals to make the weapons, in the places where structures are built to house equipment, in the landscapes where makeshift roads are 'constructed' to carry personel. It brings innocence into it, whether it means to or not. War is used to rule over others.

The only 'positive' out of war is my first point, that it is somethng used to gain profit. It is an economic push for countries involved. But I don't think that justifies it's existance.

Go find the figures of how much America spends on war and/or the military each and every year. Now compare that to how much it donates to third world countries. Has there ever been a time of peace for America? Why is peace for that country so rare - because it needs to boost it's economy. But now it's completely screwed and owes billions upon billions of dollars. Yet, it contiues to spend money on war...

There is no point. It's just a disgusting cycle.

*Sorry Lordly. This is me looking at this as a whole, not necessarily at the single individuals such as yourself who are just doing their jobs. I have a friend in the Australian army, too.

WisedMan

10-09-2008, 05:58 AM

smileeloser101

10-09-2008, 08:15 AM

Well I tend to take a rather dark view on the subjects of war and peace. I really don't think there will be peace on Earth. I disslike the effects of war as much as anyone, but I believe it IS necessary in some situations. Take for instance the American Revolution. Delegates were sent to the First and Second Continental Congresses, where they petitioned King George III. The petitions didn't work, so we tried the Declaration of Independence which in itself skirts around the idea of war between us. King George still didn't get it so we HAD to war. War was the only way we were going to convince George that we were serious about our independence. And yes, the American Revolution has inspired many other countries to rebel against their governments/monarchies. But through the wars and establishments of new governments, prosperity and a more peaceful society have become possible.

And personally, I don't think there's ever been a time in history where there was "peace". Someone in the world was always at war with someone else. It just may not have been broadcasted, sectioned off, and manipulated by slanted media.

Araiven_Valen

10-09-2008, 09:24 AM

Araiven_Valen

10-09-2008, 09:25 AM

this thread is expanding faster than i can type replies O.O jebus

Araiven_Valen

10-09-2008, 09:40 AM

There is no such as peace these days. Everywhere, there is a conflict happening around. War is just the epitome of those conflicts. Lord, I'm going to take the word, war, a bit more on the boarder scale if you don't mind. Be it a conflict or "war" between countries, between families, between neighbors, between people who were once friends. Hate creates more hate and leads to more animosity.

In my opinion, there is no justifiable case for war in any scenario. To me, declaring war on a country, friend, or family member, is a reactionary feeling. Sure we can hide the "reactionary" behavior by negotiation (or really?) and ego. Yes, there are cases where one person and/or country keeps attacking and just drives the other insane to the point of declaring war. Before we accuse them of what they have done, it would be good to take a self-reflection and go, "What did I do to even provoke this?" It's always easier for a person to blame others than themselves.

War is only beneficial if it is fighting for the betterment of a person (but even that is open to interpretation), i.e., war against poverty, war against the oil companies. To sum it up, look at yourself before you jump headstart into a conflict and ask why it even happened in the first place. Only then, will an amazing feeling of understanding comes out. With understanding, comes peace.

Not to nitpick at things, BUT, "war against poverty" is really a fictional "war" in which the elite define the terms "poverty" in such a way as to dissolve them of any responsibility. It is not a lack of money or education that the "poor" require, but rather a lack of social power as a result of inequalities inherint in the social framework. To solve global poverty and world hunger does not require throwing money at the problem, but a readjusting of social power, and distributing the resources from the top elite holding all the power, money, food, etc.
(that was just offtopic rant)

But as for war, there are many complex reasons for war and let's be honest, it is entirely possible to solve these issues by negotiations. However, that is not the ultimate goal of war in most cases. War is usually caused over the aqcuisition of more resources (main reason the US fights any wars), or it is purely ideological, and us vs. them mentality that is not grounded in pure reason and therefore cannot be solved by reason.
Do I think war is good.. no.. but I think it is inevitable and we do our best to avoid it.

Beckywolf2

10-09-2008, 11:14 AM

I feel like an idiot :/ I dont really get this lol...

Lordlymight

10-09-2008, 11:16 AM

While your argument Lordlymight was very well reasoned, my one critique was the end where it sounded very rooted in the notion of progress, which as we have seen is a worldview or "fiction" created during the time of colonialism on the part of Western society to justify their enslavement of less "advanced" or "progressed" societies. They saw it as their right and duty to help them further along the path to progess i.e. to Western Civilization. Not to romanticize pastoral and egalitarian societies, but, it should be noted that if you look into the past societies have always had their own way of justice and what was good or bad is very relative to the society you live in. Just like culture good and bad are always being redefined by the people that live out their daily lives with each other and I do not think that "good" is always improving but rather just changing/

Firstly, you are dead on correct in that I use solely Western philosophies and my own Westernized concepts as the basis of not only those statements but the vast majority of my opinion-writing. This bias is inherent within the very way that I think and can be difficult to uproot. I leave it to you guys to point out any differences.

In retort though, even the most egalitarian society strives to improve their way of life. Regardless of the civilization (or lack there of), any "community" (a word I use to describe free-formed social groups that are not based on the rampage of their fellow humans or nomadic lifestyle choices) makes an attempt to be better with each other that the generation before. Many fail, but most succeed. An example might be a small village ruled by a group of town elders, who later appoints an administrator as the village becomes a town, who steps down to elections (or some other form of rule)... etc

The way we govern ourselves is one of the defining characteristics to this case. Why? Because when law is run by the mob, the rules tend to be non-existent. If it is run by a group, with clearly defined statutes, then justice becomes more prevalent. As justice becomes more prevalent, the level of "goodness" in a society increases (remember all those ambivalents we discussed earlier who are driven by consequence) and "evilness" is punished and removed.

Rural law does not automatically mean uncivilized, by the way. If you are the head of a small nomadic group that deals with transgressions fairly, justly and equally, then that makes that group striving for "goodness".

lenore_lurks

10-09-2008, 11:21 AM

I feel like an idiot :/ I dont really get this lol...

The initial question was about if war has value.

Do you have any opinions about war? Do you feel it is required in today's word (does it have a use?) and if so, what are your reasons behind thinking what you do?

ola_swirl

10-09-2008, 11:58 AM

DF001

10-09-2008, 12:05 PM

About the good and evil thing..

I think that they are just concepts. What is ''good'' for someone can be ''evil'' for someone else.

Mostly because of pros and cons.

To some...cons weight more than pros

To others...pros weight more than cons

:D

Beckywolf2

10-09-2008, 01:15 PM

The initial question was about if war has value.

Do you have any opinions about war? Do you feel it is required in today's word (does it have a use?) and if so, what are your reasons behind thinking what you do?

oh right lol, i get it now.. Thank you lenore <33

Lordlymight

10-09-2008, 03:31 PM

You must have copied this from somewhere. xDDDD Jk, jk!
.....Argh, your post is so long ._."

No, that is solely my handiwork, hammered out before dinner last night. I actually had intended to expand on a few points, such as benevolence and malevolence, but ldy was giving me that look (and sushi was calling my name)

That said, actually, there is absolutely nothing wrong in paraphrasing other people's work so long as you credit the work. Why reinvent the wheel. There are dozens of philosophers and ethics analysts that agree with very strongly. Pretty good bet in some circumstances, I will not be able to top whatever they have said. Other times, I don't agree with anyone and feel the need to start from scratch. How you organize your beliefs is a very personal thing. Just because something is personal does not mean it is unique. There have been a lot of people who have lived before me, and there will be quite a few after I'm gone. Good bet a lot of them will ask themseleves the same questions I ask myself everyday.

About the good and evil thing..

I think that they are just concepts. What is ''good'' for someone can be ''evil'' for someone else.

Mostly because of pros and cons.

To some...cons weight more than pros

To others...pros weight more than cons

:D

The concept is exactly what was in question, zap. And while there is a great deal of "personalization of meaning," there are still fundamental truths within those meanings that hold regardless of the participant.

For instance, no matter who you are, ****, no matter the billions of circumstances that could surround the act, can not ever be argued as a good act... ever. It is fundamentally evil. Feeding someone who is hungry from your own food (summarized as "self-sacrifice") can never be argued as an evil act. It is fundamentally good.

Do you see what I'm shooting at here?

Takimi

10-09-2008, 04:17 PM

--Two cents, neh?

War- it is an act of violence caused and "justified" by a single or multiple accusations claiming that the other has done such and such. This such and such action is against our "morals" and "constitution," so therefore, we must stick our noses into their problems.

War- Value-wise, there isn't much but grief and more hate sowed because of a loved one's death. Conceivably, it would help the economy as shown after the Stock Market Crash. of whatever year it was, I don't care really. But if getting more money was the issue, let's back up a tad--

So far, we have a bank crisis, Bush giving away more than 700 Billion to bail them out, WaMu being bought out and I went to school, forgot my train of thought and now I can't finish this -.-...

Okkkaayyy I remember I was going to make a point on the cost of war, pointing out that the effort and money placed into war is enough that if we cut back and just pulled out of Iraq like we should have 4 years ago, we could have used that money towards National Debt, which by the way, we only pay the interest on it, we don't even get anywhere close to paying part of the actual debt.

Why stick our noses in other people's civil wars? Because America sees itself as a "Paragon of Right/Good." The Vietnam war for example. I don't know too much about it, so correct me if make an incorrect statement, but the amount of peace rallys far outweighed that actual supporters for the war. But it continued because why? I don't really know; most likely had to do with whomever was President and what his notions of morals were.

As a society, we believe everyone must adhere to American Sociality Notions. I use "we" as a general collective. If you steal, you are BAD. No, don't want to listen to the reason behind it, you're probably lying anyways. What if that person stole whatever it was because for one, it was something they needed and couldn't pay for? Now, I'm aware, most steal because they can and are greede, but our "Justice" system sells itself as "just" and "merciful." I don't see how the merciful part shows up.

Now, we intervened in the Vietnam War (I think) because we saw communism or whatever it was and said, "Hey, that's not right. Let's be the supreme authority on this and tell them what to do."

Now, I may sound a little condescending, but if a country wants to run itself as a communistic country, then by jove, let them do it. They'll pay for THEIR mistakes. And if they are menat to succeed, they will learn from them.

So in other words, there is never a good reason for war. I do tihnk that the American Revolution was a good thing, but I don't believe it was the best way. I know that there will always be conflict here in this world, true "peace" isn't, in my opinion, possible.

However! Excessive violence can be avoided. And the money used for that could go towards the national debt, which, by the way, I mentioned, is not decreasing >,>...

And yes, that's worth two cents. Give me five bucks an I'll keep going.

ShonenHero

10-09-2008, 04:28 PM

Agh, darn... well, I know nothing about US history or anything, so Taki`s examples were kinda lost here on me, I like to wonder here into the concept of war itself, as we were doing before, without mentioning countries and facts of the sort... even though, yeah, examples are unavoidable

Shaden

10-09-2008, 04:50 PM

For instance, no matter who you are, ****, no matter the billions of circumstances that could surround the act, can not ever be argued as a good act... ever. It is fundamentally evil. Feeding someone who is hungry from your own food (summarized as "self-sacrifice") can never be argued as an evil act. It is fundamentally good.

Couldn't you argue that feeding someone from your own food through pity is evil (in a sense)? Perhaps I am after another word here that I can't pull off my tongue... not pity of feeling sorrow for ones losses / problems - but more of a corrupt pity brought on by disgust from pride (you don't like seeing the homeless on your streets because it might lower outsiders views of you, personally, and the area in general, so you feed them to make yourself look better and the city itself; but it's all for your own [selfish] ideals).

Sure, in general feeding another with your own food is a 'good' thing to do in the eyes of others and if you make yourself feel good inside because of it. But I believe it can definitely be argued as I stated above.

I'm not a pro-debater here, but I feel that argument holds up because while others cannot see how it is possibly wrong from the outside, it still is an act of evil on the inside.

- I'm using 'pride' in the sense of 'arrogance' and 'egotism'.

Edit: And perhaps that whole self-sacrifice statement cancels my entire argument here. I should have thought that over a bit more. Well, wasted my time because I failed to think harder... oh well. xD

Takimi

10-09-2008, 04:55 PM

RikoRain

10-09-2008, 05:10 PM

LOL
TOO MUCH, DIDNT READ (Honestly Lordly I love your posts but I have such a short attention span for lengthy things. Id rather ge tto the dirt and be done Dx)

Ah, teh good ol.. good vs evil thing and whether ppl are naturally one or the other..

My opinion: You are neither naturally good or evil. When you are born, your mind is a blank slate. You know nothing, you have nothing stored in your brain yet. No memories, no interactions, nothing. Absolutely nothing. Like a fresh computer that only has the basic "load windows" (load your life), and basic system requirements to keep the computer alive (basic human requirements: to get food, breathe, heartbeat, etc).

Therefore no one is naturally good or evil, and the human race is not naturally good or evil. Its what people do thats evil.

And even then, good and evil are relative.

For example, I think religion is evil. It distorts peopels lives, makes them believe things that really arent true, causes them to harm/threaten/ruin others lives who dont think the same religion as them, etc, etc (I understand not all people are OMG RELIGION JUNKIE, this is for examples sake) -- but someone who believes in a religion would obviously think that its good, and that I am evil for not believing in their religion. Does that make me evil? No. I just dont like what they like.

And dont even get started on religion. I would shiv bricks in anger if someone decides to flame/target me for just using that as an example.

And the reason we never achieve a "PERFECT SOCIETY" is because humans are naturally.. LAZY.
Yes, given the chance, we will be lazy. And since we are lazy, we will never achieve a [perfect society. We will never get that "Everyone works and is happy to" society, or the "no one kills another human" society. Because we are all different, and we are all lazy to some degree. Hence why in groups in KQ, theres always that 1 person in the pt who wont do much, and you know it, you watch their sp barely move, they shroom at first notice, and go afk alot.
Why? Well, because they are lazy. Why work hard, when others will do it for you?

Blah.

I wanna debate Outsparks bad decisions (Server move to LAGGIER servers. Firing good GMs/staff. Telling ppl to NPC their blues, then letting them stay, then if you report it and its false cus you dont remember when you NPCd em, you ge tbanned for it. REDICULOUS punishment of the players who follow the rules)

Takimi

10-09-2008, 06:41 PM

LOL
TOO MUCH, DIDNT READ (Honestly Lordly I love your posts but I have such a short attention span for lengthy things. Id rather ge tto the dirt and be done Dx)

Ah, teh good ol.. good vs evil thing and whether ppl are naturally one or the other..

My opinion: You are neither naturally good or evil. When you are born, your mind is a blank slate. You know nothing, you have nothing stored in your brain yet. No memories, no interactions, nothing. Absolutely nothing. Like a fresh computer that only has the basic "load windows" (load your life), and basic system requirements to keep the computer alive (basic human requirements: to get food, breathe, heartbeat, etc).

Therefore no one is naturally good or evil, and the human race is not naturally good or evil. Its what people do thats evil.

And even then, good and evil are relative.

For example, I think religion is evil. It distorts peopels lives, makes them believe things that really arent true, causes them to harm/threaten/ruin others lives who dont think the same religion as them, etc, etc (I understand not all people are OMG RELIGION JUNKIE, this is for examples sake) -- but someone who believes in a religion would obviously think that its good, and that I am evil for not believing in their religion. Does that make me evil? No. I just dont like what they like.

And dont even get started on religion. I would shiv bricks in anger if someone decides to flame/target me for just using that as an example.

And the reason we never achieve a "PERFECT SOCIETY" is because humans are naturally.. LAZY.
Yes, given the chance, we will be lazy. And since we are lazy, we will never achieve a [perfect society. We will never get that "Everyone works and is happy to" society, or the "no one kills another human" society. Because we are all different, and we are all lazy to some degree. Hence why in groups in KQ, theres always that 1 person in the pt who wont do much, and you know it, you watch their sp barely move, they shroom at first notice, and go afk alot.
Why? Well, because they are lazy. Why work hard, when others will do it for you?

Blah.

I wanna debate Outsparks bad decisions (Server move to LAGGIER servers. Firing good GMs/staff. Telling ppl to NPC their blues, then letting them stay, then if you report it and its false cus you dont remember when you NPCd em, you ge tbanned for it. RIDICULOUS punishment of the players who follow the rules)

Well, for one, I would not say you're "evil" for not being a Christian. I'd say you're an unbeliever and leave it at that. I might bring it up once in a while to get you interested, but I wouldn't call you evil.

And I say feel free to debate it, but I'm just putting it out there that I want no topics that will get this thread banned.

ILiKePieLoRDoFKNiVeS

10-09-2008, 07:49 PM

My opinion is that good and evil are the extreems, and it is almost impossible for any human being to reach one or the other. Acts can be evil, but do you know the reasoning for some of them?? why did person A kill person B? maybe it was defence of yourself/loved ones, maybe it was because he looked at him wrong. killing is still wrong, but when put in a dangerous situation unprepared, you cannot think as you normaly would. Animals have no.. whats the right word... fear? no.. of killing. they dont go out of their way just to kill something. We are just the same. just because we have a higher elevation of thought has given us a conscience has also given us the thought that we can judge others.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

wasted all my words on this, on war i just say that if more people will die without the war, it is justifiable. if it is not, it is wrong.

Lordlymight

10-09-2008, 08:51 PM

Couldn't you argue that feeding someone from your own food through pity is evil (in a sense)? Perhaps I am after another word here that I can't pull off my tongue... not pity of feeling sorrow for ones losses / problems - but more of a corrupt pity brought on by disgust from pride (you don't like seeing the homeless on your streets because it might lower outsiders views of you, personally, and the area in general, so you feed them to make yourself look better and the city itself; but it's all for your own [selfish] ideals).

Sure, in general feeding another with your own food is a 'good' thing to do in the eyes of others and if you make yourself feel good inside because of it. But I believe it can definitely be argued as I stated above.

I'm not a pro-debater here, but I feel that argument holds up because while others cannot see how it is possibly wrong from the outside, it still is an act of evil on the inside.

- I'm using 'pride' in the sense of 'arrogance' and 'egotism'.

Edit: And perhaps that whole self-sacrifice statement cancels my entire argument here. I should have thought that over a bit more. Well, wasted my time because I failed to think harder... oh well. xD

You have touched on a subject that is absolutely fundamental to this discussion. The concept of intent...

In a sense, I have been implying that the intentions of the individual performing the act matched the action, but you are absolutely right. A good act committed with bad intentions loses its inherent goodness. A good example would be someone that volunteers time at a homeless shelter, but only does so to serve his community service time he was sentenced in court.

This is true in the opposite as well, in that evil acts (especially those committed by children) accompanied by a complete lack of understanding of the consequences or results loses some of its evilness.

Excellent point

Now I would like to discuss a few things you mentioned that I might see differently. Pity is not evil, in my opinion. It is selfish possibly (especially if the act is done to make you feel better about yourself or to impress others), but not evil. What you describe better represents vanity.

Also, be careful representing selfishness as evilness. It is actually its own category entirely. An evil act requires the intent to do evil. A selfish thought does not necessarily serve that path.

Now make no mistake, many evil individuals are self-serving and selfish, but the difference is when posed with a decision that requires that they: a) do someone no harm to achieve their ends or b) wreck havoc to achieve their own ends, they will choose the latter of the two.

LOL
TOO MUCH, DIDNT READ (Honestly Lordly I love your posts but I have such a short attention span for lengthy things. Id rather ge tto the dirt and be done Dx)

got the same thing from my wife. Don't worry, I'm used to it hehe

Ah, teh good ol.. good vs evil thing and whether ppl are naturally one or the other..

My opinion: You are neither naturally good or evil. When you are born, your mind is a blank slate. You know nothing, you have nothing stored in your brain yet. No memories, no interactions, nothing. Absolutely nothing. Like a fresh computer that only has the basic "load windows" (load your life), and basic system requirements to keep the computer alive (basic human requirements: to get food, breathe, heartbeat, etc).

There is science available now that would refute you on this. Children supposedly begin learning well prior to being born. The actions of the mother have significant impact on the instincts of the child, even when they are separated at birth. I actually just spent about ten minutes looking for some articles on it and here is what I found:

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/brain.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)

I warn you ahead of time, I read only a small fraction of each, so read on with a grain of salt.

But that is neither here nor there to your point, I just thought it was an interesting side-note

Therefore no one is naturally good or evil, and the human race is not naturally good or evil. Its what people do thats evil.

And even then, good and evil are relative.

For example, I think religion is evil. It distorts peopels lives, makes them believe things that really arent true, causes them to harm/threaten/ruin others lives who dont think the same religion as them, etc, etc (I understand not all people are OMG RELIGION JUNKIE, this is for examples sake) -- but someone who believes in a religion would obviously think that its good, and that I am evil for not believing in their religion. Does that make me evil? No. I just dont like what they like.

And dont even get started on religion. I would shiv bricks in anger if someone decides to flame/target me for just using that as an example.

Unfortunately, due to constraints within forum rules, we can't go more in depth on this, but perhaps one day via PM or one of the various IM programs, we can continue.

Suffice it to say that you are not alone in your thoughts on religion. There have been dozens of prominent philosophers that agree with you, and dozens that disagree. It is a fascinating topic (and was the focus of one of my 400 lvl philosophy courses in college).

And the reason we never achieve a "PERFECT SOCIETY" is because humans are naturally.. LAZY.
Yes, given the chance, we will be lazy. And since we are lazy, we will never achieve a [perfect society. We will never get that "Everyone works and is happy to" society, or the "no one kills another human" society. Because we are all different, and we are all lazy to some degree. Hence why in groups in KQ, theres always that 1 person in the pt who wont do much, and you know it, you watch their sp barely move, they shroom at first notice, and go afk alot.
Why? Well, because they are lazy. Why work hard, when others will do it for you?

Excellent point, and very true.

Have you ever heard of the concept of Eudeimonia?

I wanna debate Outsparks bad decisions (Server move to LAGGIER servers. Firing good GMs/staff. Telling ppl to NPC their blues, then letting them stay, then if you report it and its false cus you dont remember when you NPCd em, you ge tbanned for it. REDICULOUS punishment of the players who follow the rules)

By all means. In order to inspire debate though, you must pose us a question.

RikoRain

10-09-2008, 09:14 PM

got the same thing from my wife. Don't worry, I'm used to it hehe

There is science available now that would refute you on this. Children supposedly begin learning well prior to being born. The actions of the mother have significant impact on the instincts of the child, even when they are separated at birth. I actually just spent about ten minutes looking for some articles on it and here is what I found:

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/brain.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)

I warn you ahead of time, I read only a small fraction of each, so read on with a grain of salt.But that is neither here nor there to your point, I just thought it was an interesting side-note

Unfortunately, due to constraints within forum rules, we can't go more in depth on this, but perhaps one day via PM or one of the various IM programs, we can continue.

Suffice it to say that you are not alone in your thoughts on religion. There have been dozens of prominent philosophers that agree with you, and dozens that disagree. It is a fascinating topic (and was the focus of one of my 400 lvl philosophy courses in college).

Excellent point, and very true.

Have you ever heard of the concept of Eudeimonia?

By all means. In order to inspire debate though, you must pose us a question.

Blah, then let me go further than the point of birth..
When you are first able to even think coherently, and the body able to soak up any info.. JUST BEFORE THAT, you are still a blank slate. The sperm isnt all charged with evil when it hits the egg. The sperm isnt thinking "AH Ill merge with this egg, and when I grow up I will go about killing people because I am an evil sperm".

Nah
We are all blank slates to begin with. And even if we do soak up stuff while in the womb, its not coherent thoughts and stuff. Maybe some murmurs, some muffled sounds, but its not like we can understand those. And the baby in the womb can only somewhat interpret feelings through the mothers movements and hormones. Because even if shes all charged with stress, the baby inside doesnt realize its stress. The baby inside doesnt realize what the threat is. It could be some "evil" person attacking her, or it could just br she stressed about getting married.
The baby doesnt know yet because it hasnt been taught that. Its still a blank slate in that regard. It doesnt know what anything is yet, it only has the basic instincts programmed into it.

Im not gonna even follow those links. I have a feeling its gonna lead to some Abortion topic, which Ill only leave madder than I am.

Lol debate can be about a fact or subject tho, my subject being the .. hmm.. stupidity of Outspark. Ive already been telling CL Poisoned77 about this..

how.. they said, don sell the blues, dont enhance them, dont even do gordon to get them.
They wil be deleted.
So like the good lil terrified person I am, I dont do ti. I dont wanna get banned for it, as they said they would if you were caught sellin em. I let the server eat em, or gave it to a friend to npc later (he wanted screenies ><), or gave one to my bro cus he always wanted to have one, even tho it was gonna be deleted. Those were the only ones I had before they annoiunced that, but my point being I got rid of all of them.

Now theyre rewarding the people who disobeyed them. And I am mad. So very mad. I oculd have kept my 3 blues, and saved them for a while, and sold them at most for like 30g ea. Now I cant do squat.

Soulfrit

10-09-2008, 09:15 PM

Unless you wish to start us off Lordy :p

smileeloser101

10-09-2008, 09:39 PM

That's an interesting point you bring up Shaden. Dare I ask if you have been, are currently, or intend to become enrolled in a psychology or philosophy class?

I help the homeless when I can, because I know that it will always stick with them deep down. Not because I personally want to be remembered, but because I don't want any day to go by without the discussion of goodness (inspired by Socrates, of course). It's out there, whatever your definiton of the word "good" is.

Lordlymight

10-09-2008, 11:28 PM

Question Posed:

What is "sentience"?

Try to avoid textbook answers. There are dozens of "definitions," but in the world of the armchair philosopher, this is not only a valid, but pertinent topic. Tomorrows topic will follow of from this.

PS: In no way do the new topics mean that discussion of old topics ends. Feel free to continue discussing Good & Evil, War & Outspark policy, please...

ILiKePieLoRDoFKNiVeS

10-10-2008, 06:24 AM

sentience

sentience is the ability to act knowingly that that action is either right or wrong.

i might be mixing up my words....

programmer579

10-10-2008, 08:43 AM

>.< just read this thread D: and it was a long read >.< and after spending an hour updating the "2 word story" lol ...

1. Good vs Evil
Can you imagine a place full of people of a different mindset? Since there are "evil" people in this world, and just take evil to be anyone that commits certain acts with the intention of malice, there could be entire groups of people of this sort. In their mindset, a group of evil people remember, what then is their definition of "evil" and "good." This is completely subjective. It seems "evil" and "good" are defined by the majority. And anyone outside that majority are persecuted for being different.

If a person is born "inherently good" then that person has the freedom to choose to continue on that path or to deviate. Therefore it is irrelevant how someone is born. A person is thrown into this world, not by their own choice mind you, and are forced to deal with everything that comes their way. It all boils down to the choices that a person makes and the consequences of each act. Since it seems that there is some agreement that it is more the act that is good or evil rather than the person. Although the interpretation of an act is subjective. There is no way to be "objective" since we ourselves are subjective and who's to say what reference frame is to be used in order to be considered "objective."

Since it is near impossible to give one specific definition to "good" and "evil" it is used more generally in our day-to-day business.

2. Value of War (if any)
I think it is pointless. There are some "good" outcomes (those which elevate the previous circumstances in a positive way) and there are "bad" outcomes (generally referring to death tolls etc etc). It is the world in which we live because we are free and are different (I use the word "different" so as to avoid a debate of "uniqueness" at this time - as that was sort-of started in the vent thread earlier). If everyone was the same (same thoughts, same ideals, etc) then there would be no problems. Since we are not all the same then it is inevitable because there will always be someone out there trying to achieve what they believe to be for the betterment of either themselves or their following (be it a nation or what have you); and thus there will always be someone who disagrees.

3. Meaning of Sentience
Ok this was is a good one Lordlymight, I had to go search for some different meanings to better express own opinion. So here's my take on sentience.

Sentience is the general act of being subjective.

I'm not sure where you wanted to go with this Lordlymight >.< so i'll leave it at that until further notice. Maybe I tok sentience the wrong way, I understand it as being subjective and conscious of your actions. If that is so then would it not be ironic to call things without feelings which are indifferent sentient? I'm not sure it's just what I read >.<

Lordlymight

10-10-2008, 10:47 AM

>.< just read this thread D: and it was a long read >.< and after spending an hour updating the "2 word story" lol ...

And see, it all paid off ;)

1. Good vs Evil
Can you imagine a place full of people of a different mindset? Since there are "evil" people in this world, and just take evil to be anyone that commits certain acts with the intention of malice, there could be entire groups of people of this sort. In their mindset, a group of evil people remember, what then is their definition of "evil" and "good." This is completely subjective. It seems "evil" and "good" are defined by the majority. And anyone outside that majority are persecuted for being different.

If a person is born "inherently good" then that person has the freedom to choose to continue on that path or to deviate. Therefore it is irrelevant how someone is born. A person is thrown into this world, not by their own choice mind you, and are forced to deal with everything that comes their way. It all boils down to the choices that a person makes and the consequences of each act. Since it seems that there is some agreement that it is more the act that is good or evil rather than the person. Although the interpretation of an act is subjective. There is no way to be "objective" since we ourselves are subjective and who's to say what reference frame is to be used in order to be considered "objective."

Since it is near impossible to give one specific definition to "good" and "evil" it is used more generally in our day-to-day business.

I would disagree on your point that we are born "good." It is my educated opinion that we are born inherently selfish. The choice to be good or evil is made consciously. I do believe that based on environment and certain neurological anomalies, some people have the propensity for good, but the choice must still be made.

Your point on majority thinking though is dead on. But that is the nature of social creatures, wouldn't you agree? Being singular is a poor survival technique unless you have the inherent power to manage on your own. This is especially true when the only natural enemy you have is your fellow species.

There is nothing wrong with being individualistic, but if you become deviant, then you will find that your place amongst the pack/herd/pride/group will become lost. The damage caused by such a lost is considerable.

Also, there is a difference in being a minority in general social behavior and a minority in a way that does not affect your ability to function as a member of the whole. The deselection of group members based on such tangibles as race, creed or philosophy is often more detrimental to the majority than if such groups were included. In fact, it is quite possibly one of the leading causes of "evil acts" to deselect a member or group based on arbitrary differences (think of race riots, crusades, jihads, and ethnic cleansing).

smileeloser101

10-10-2008, 01:03 PM

So much to read and write! I'll come to this in a few minutes.

Takimi

10-10-2008, 02:39 PM

*side note, I love myself... this is my favorite thread :D*

Alright now... let's see here:

I would disagree on your point that we are born "good." It is my educated opinion that we are born inherently selfish.

Now, here, I agree. From the first we arrive into the world, we cry for attention, milk, to be held... anything we want. We may be unable to intelligently voice our opinions, but we still have the vocal chords to scream/yell/whine/cry for what we want.

The choice to be good or evil is made consciously. I do believe that based on environment and certain neurological anomalies, some people have the propensity for good, but the choice must still be made.

Now, this too, I also agree with. I believe that in the environment we grow up in, we either choose A or B. If you live in an abusive home, you choose to A) Become an angry person/lash out/treat people harshly or B) Decide that it is NOT what you wish to be and improve upon your situation.

An example I would like to use (for I find that if one uses their self as an example, you can better argue it, for who knows you better than yoursel?), is myself; in that I may be neurologically inclined to depression, and therefore sometimes I do things in hopes of gathering attention (now, I'll insert here that I mean "real life", I'll argue and act like a normal person in-game, but I won't go cussing at people to make them pay attention xD).

Your point on majority thinking though is dead on. But that is the nature of social creatures, wouldn't you agree? Being singular is a poor survival technique unless you have the inherent power to manage on your own. This is especially true when the only natural enemy you have is your fellow species.

And here, I'll refer back to my example and point on attention. I hate being alone. I'll freely admit it; I love being around a few people I can trust implicitly. We, as the dominant species, have no predators. The only ones that pose a threat to us is ourselves. When push comes to shove, we will destroy ourselves. Humanity will dissolve into nothingness when the final test comes. Cannibalism? I think humans would go there. I think, if they had to, they would.

ie: Your plane crashed/boat sank. You and three people are in a life-raft together. You are the ONLY ones that survived. There is enough water for a week for two people, less if all three lived. One of your number falls asleep and the third person mentions the small amount of water and how they wouldn't contribute anyways. They will perhaps speak of how that person wouldn't be missed-- should they... go byebye. If you KNEW that the only way you would survive was for there to be one less person-- would you do it?

I think the majority of humans would. I cannot honestly say I would or not. I don't want to die, but I don't want to be directly/indirectly responsible for killing someone. The human consience, is yet, another debate we could go on and on about :D

(have I mentioned I love this thread and myself? :D:rolleyes::cool::rolleyes::D)

There is nothing wrong with being individualistic, but if you become deviant, then you will find that your place amongst the pack/herd/pride/group will become lost. The damage caused by such a lost is considerable.

I myself have done this ^^

My "group" last year was compromised of honor english class students, most of us stretching back to 7th grade. Now, in 11th grade, I have left the honors circuit and now I barely talk to them. We just don't see each other.

But then, yet ANOTHER debate topic could be centered around individualism and socialism (if that's the right term?)

Also, there is a difference in being a minority in general social behavior and a minority in a way that does not affect your ability to function as a member of the whole. The deselection of group members based on such tangibles as race, creed or philosophy is often more detrimental to the majority than if such groups were included. In fact, it is quite possibly one of the leading causes of "evil acts" to deselect a member or group based on arbitrary differences (think of race riots, crusades, jihads, and ethnic cleansing).

I personally think that racism needs to go find a hole, crawl inside it, wall it up and die. There is no "pro" to racism.

Now, I have heard of this "test" that tells you about your own subconcious racism. It was posed to several young children.

What it entailed, I'm not exactly sure; but an example question from it this: there are about 20 children. These proctors will take the children one at a time into a room with dolls and asked to find and pick out the prettiest. The room would have caucasion dolls, black dolls, native american, indian, asian and so on so forth. Supposedly, the results came back that even the black children they tested picked up white dolls.

So their conclusion was that they are trained to think white > black.

Now, here is my view on this: throughout history, good has been painted with synonyms of white, bright colors, happiness and so one so forth. Evil is related to black, dark colors, sadness... I honestly love the color "black" (although, apparently scientist say black is the absence of color... w/e). I love the color white. I love blue. But blue can be both a light color and dark color, yes? So if I happen to prefer a navy to a sky blue a certain day, am I all of a sudden prejudiced to blacks? Because it's a darker color?

I believe the test is flawed, and really, the only way you can tell if someone is racist is by how they treat others, not by which doll they choose.

Lordlymight

10-10-2008, 06:14 PM

Actually, the test is valid, but incomplete. What would have to happen is that the dolls were taken someplace where contacts with other ethnicities were unknown or absent (for instance, a mountain village in Napal). I am going to look this up and see if this was tested before... interesting...

RikoRain

10-10-2008, 06:58 PM

Value of war
For those who accept it as a means of doing something, its a way for them to express their ways, protect things dear to them..

But its also like raep. Youre forcing your ideas onto other people.

But then again >.> Ya know, they hijacked our planes and blew up a building, killing loads of people. I think its quite fair we go to war.

Sentience. Im assuming you mean as in sentient beings.

Any being is Sentient if it feels, moves, walks, talks, to a degree, and UNDERSTANDS what it is to fell, move, etc, and can express it in its own manner, and full absorb what it is.

In other words: Anything that can look up at the sky, and feel small, and wonder whats up there. -.- basically, hard to explain okay im breain dead and makign bad typoes

ShonenHero

10-10-2008, 08:17 PM

(have I mentioned I love this thread and myself? :D:rolleyes::cool::rolleyes::D

I knew that you loved yourself, but the thread part is new *Drums*

Now seriously, so many volumes to read, as Juneau said, I´ll get back to this when I get back home

If you want me to go home faster, refrain from calling Sprint Customer Care, thanks!

smileeloser101

10-10-2008, 08:34 PM

I knew that you loved yourself, but the thread part is new *Drums*

Now seriously, so many volumes to read, as Juneau said, I´ll get back to this when I get back home

If you want me to go home faster, refrain from calling Sprint Customer Care, thanks!

Well I WAS going to get back to this thread, but I just took some allergy medicine and now I'm getting a bit loopy so I'm making my rounds and saying good night. I use Sprint...

AkujinRyu

10-10-2008, 08:39 PM

Dr_Feelgood

10-10-2008, 08:45 PM

i may haven't been on in a while but i have something for you guys to debate about so listen closely WHo is the greatest guild in APoline and why is that guild so great? and this question is a seperate one but WHo in your opinion is the greatest Guild Master of all Time?

There is no good answer for that. All guilds are different, good and bad in their own ways. You can't compare guilds based off of assumptions. You have to BE in a guild to judge it.

Guild masters...

Don't you have something better to debate about? -.-

AkujinRyu

10-10-2008, 09:02 PM

Doc you should know better than to ask me that after all me and you have been through you must know by the question i'm bored out of my damn mind!

Takimi

10-10-2008, 09:26 PM

*ahem* Serious debates in my thread please...

AkujinRyu

10-10-2008, 09:50 PM

smileeloser101

10-10-2008, 09:55 PM

Takimi

10-10-2008, 10:40 PM

Umm... no it isn't really.

Someone somewhere always makes a thread about stuff like that in General Discussion. This thread is meant for more in-depth topics such as we've been discussing. These topics tended to plague the Vent thread, so I made this thread.

Not to be rude, but if I wanted to go talk about how that is completely ridiculous, I'd go find the latest thread on it in General/World Discussion.

ShonenHero

10-10-2008, 11:22 PM

*ahem* Serious debates in my thread please...

Hahaha, Taki`s proud of her thread

So, well, let`s see if you like the following topic, one I`ve been struggling with for years, and I`m going to use one of Lordly`s templates...

What, if any, is the value of cursing and bad language?

Of course, avoid examples

Go for it!

Takimi

10-11-2008, 12:03 AM

Hahaha, Taki`s proud of her thread
And I shouldn't be?

Anyways, cursing has no value except to perhaps express a strong emotion. But why people can't just resort to non-sensensical sounds and intense waving of hands like me, I don't know. I suppose that within our society today, cussing is considered "normal" and somehow makes you "cool."

BAH.

It makes you look like an ill-educated buffoon, that's what.

I won't say that I haven't slipped an s... or a f... once in a great while like say, when I just got pushed over or ruined a project -.-

Things happen and words sometime slip. But normally, I toss my hands around, make loud frustrated noises and sound like some squeaky upset thing.

But hey, that's just me...

hotsnowman

10-11-2008, 12:07 AM

ooooooooo i love debates
what are we debating?

RikoRain

10-11-2008, 12:39 AM

Hahaha, Taki`s proud of her thread

So, well, let`s see if you like the following topic, one I`ve been struggling with for years, and I`m going to use one of Lordly`s templates...

What, if any, is the value of cursing and bad language?

I have a very unique view on this...
To me, there is no such thing as a curse word. you cant actually curse someone to oblivion, or the south place, or to a burning inferno if nightmares. Its not possible. logically it snot possible, therefore, you cant curse someone, therefore, they are just words. And most of them are words to replace things, or fill in between things. Heck i could name a ton of em that when boiled down to it, are just alternate words for feces.

So if you say one of those words is a curse word, then youre saying the word feces is too. And stool, and loads of other words we use as non "curse" words.

But, it is seen as a poor thing to d in society. Honestly, I wont notice if someone "curses" or uses bad language if Im talking to them, unless its aggressive talk. I could care less. Cursing doesnt make them any less of a person. The straight A student in the class could have a mouth that curses up a storm, but does that mean hes dumb? Does that mean he does drugs, and smokes, and stuff? No. No it doesnt.

The only real VALUE of "cursing" is to genuinely express more feeling. After all someone saying out in length "***" grabs your attention because it holds more emotion that if they just sighed. Because not only do you feel that heavy breath on it, but they are words that can be formed to emotions.

Im not saying you should or shouldnt, but in the end you have to keep in mind they are just words. They cant send you to some blazing inferno of nightmarish horrors.

Lordlymight

10-11-2008, 03:53 AM

Alright a serious debate topic: Do think the creation of a new class would bring more players back to Fiesta.

In new class i mean: Alchemist that can summon a great aray of mechanical weapons, monster, etc.

would this be reasonable or would it be consider unfair to the mage class?

I am not as strict as Taki on what is debatable, so I will actually justify this with a response...

A new class in Fiesta is not going to change membership quantity. People are not going to suddenly flock to the game because they heard it had a Alchemist/Mentalist/Berserker/MegaSuperAwesomeBadAss. What attracts and keeps players isn't classes, but playability, community, and longevity.

So in short, no, new classes will not increase player numbers, in my opinion. For players that played before the introduction, it might hold a short term interest, but to new players, it will be no more exotic than the mage or fighter.

Hahaha, Taki`s proud of her thread

So, well, let`s see if you like the following topic, one I`ve been struggling with for years, and I`m going to use one of Lordly`s templates...

What, if any, is the value of cursing and bad language?

Of course, avoid examples

Go for it!

I was late in getting to posting my question of the day, thanks for saving my butt Neo.

And since I did not post the question, I can actually post on it, woohoo.

Again, this was an interesting debate in the vent thread, so you all know this is something that is near and dear. What is about to follow is slightly sensitive personal information. It speaks volumes on how I feel about this community and specifically those that frequent the same threads as I that I am going to relate the following...

Lordly has not always been the careful, diplomatic, "take-others-feelings-into-consideration" type. I was clinically diagnosed with a very minor form of psychosis exemplified by an anger personality disorder. It included a number of sub-conditions that manifested due to my environment to include antisocial disorder, homophobia and a number of other violence-prone issues.

As a soldier, these were all perfectly reasonable and accepted forms of behavior, and therefore there was no want nor need to change. Indeed, I didn't even know there was a problem until after I returned to the states in 1995. Shortly after my return, I was placed under an anger management program after being picked up by the MPs for beating a effeminate male who had picked the wrong time and place to make a pass.

The program was a rather dismal failure, but it satisfied the Army requirement and all was well for about two years. I was again picked up for a back alley brawl. This time, I had broke my hand in about a dozen places (I highly recommend you don't punch dumpsters). The Army charged me under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for, of all things, "destruction of gov't property" and "conduct unbecoming an NCO."

After this event, I made the conscious decision to change my way of life. I was 23 years old and I felt like I was acting like a punk kid. I took up philosophy, started going to school, and disassociated myself with the people I called friends. I started taking Aikido, which was commonly associated with a defensive and controlled way of thinking. I consciously made the decision to accept homosexual behavior as, frankly, none of my damn business and accepted it as a part of the cycle of life. I began to force myself into situations where I would get unreasonably angry so that I could work on controlling it.

I was extremely successful.

Unfortunately, I found that much of my control was bottling, so I began a rigorous workout regimen. While this was great for releasing my stress at the end of the day, it never helped during an episode.

I now come to my point. I found that by using both a combination of strong language and aggressive body language, I could channel my temper instantly without causing any significant harm. It has been a little over six years since I have actually caused another person harm outside of work.

Cursing is a form of aggressive behavior. It has nothing to do with intellect and everything to do with emotion. When you curse to add inflection to a comment, it is a release of stress. In our modern society, any form of aggression is frowned upon. Therefore, cursing is considered a negative social trait. I agree with this notion, and in most societal situations, cursing is as inappropriate as breaking someone's nose. Unfortunately for me (and my family) I need this mechanism to calm a much bigger beast.

As a side note, this little piece of my history will explain a lot about why I feel the way I do about those with social disorders. I was able to drag my tail out of a mire and make myself well. I have little sympathy for those that say they can't do the same.

It is possible. You are in control of your actions in the end, regardless of your "chemistry." The mind is a very powerful tool, use it. Depression, mania, emotional dysfunction, antisocial behavior... there is no excuse. Get off your tail and make the decision to not be any of those any more. It is not a short road, and goodness knows, it isn't an easy one. But its a road all the same...

I have a very unique view on this...
To me, there is no such thing as a curse word. you cant actually curse someone to oblivion, or the south place, or to a burning inferno if nightmares. Its not possible. logically it snot possible, therefore, you cant curse someone, therefore, they are just words. And most of them are words to replace things, or fill in between things. Heck i could name a ton of em that when boiled down to it, are just alternate words for feces.

So if you say one of those words is a curse word, then youre saying the word feces is too. And stool, and loads of other words we use as non "curse" words.

A valid point. In this case, you have made the choice to argue the semantics of the question, but I believe that Neo's intent was that we debate the action as it is. Your follow-on statements imply that you understand this, so I won't go into any retort. In the end, your statements are correct.

But, it is seen as a poor thing to d in society. Honestly, I wont notice if someone "curses" or uses bad language if Im talking to them, unless its aggressive talk. I could care less. Cursing doesnt make them any less of a person. The straight A student in the class could have a mouth that curses up a storm, but does that mean hes dumb? Does that mean he does drugs, and smokes, and stuff? No. No it doesnt.

The only real VALUE of "cursing" is to genuinely express more feeling. After all someone saying out in length "***" grabs your attention because it holds more emotion that if they just sighed. Because not only do you feel that heavy breath on it, but they are words that can be formed to emotions.

Im not saying you should or shouldnt, but in the end you have to keep in mind they are just words. They cant send you to some blazing inferno of nightmarish horrors.

This is very well stated. These statements are great support for the story above.

RikoRain

10-11-2008, 11:06 AM

Lordly, youre lax man. Youre in Uru vending xD

What can I say? I think logically. It comes to me as common sense, and I swear.. most people in the world now have absolutely no common sense.

New topic ! :D
The use of Video games, good or bad for you, me, and lil Tim
(Video games being bad or good for a person)

First of the kid should be smart enough to realize its a game, and not life. then they should be able to realize that the actions in the game arent what happen in real life. And lastly, they should realize that they should not replicate the actions in the game, should they be bad.

And then, if the kid doesnt understand it, its up to the PARENT, YES, THE PARENT, to either restrict or limit this gameplay, OR explain to the child the difference so he does understand.

Now yes, Ill admit, stupid games like GTA, whos soul purpose is to steal cars, beat people up, shoot at people, kill people ( in a realistic environment that mirrors our own in classical looks, not actions tho), gives an amazingly bad name to games.

But then you have other games that teach you morals, loyalty, honesty, friendship, etc, etc. Its not the writers fault for thinking up a game like that (Ok it is, but its not his fault that...-->) that the person playing it thinks OMG THIS MUST BE REAL LIFE. Its the parents fault for buying their kid this game. You cant even blame it on the game store for their "lax in age restrictions". What are they? Mind readers? They cant go -radar beeping- OMG THAT KIDS 12, better not sell him that 13+ game!!!. NO. You go take a walk in Walmart and try to guess peoples ages. Youll find it hard too. And even if they did ask, the kid only lies. So whos fault is it? Where does it boil down to?

Well, all the parents. Why? 1) They didnt teach their kid common sense and that the game =/= real life. 2) They know/notice this in their kid and still do nothing. 3) They never REMOVE the "bad" game. 4)They let their kid buy games without checking them out first / verifying with parents. 5) They gave their kid the money to go buy whatever game he wants.

Theres 5 well points. And ya know, my momma raised me well. And Ill admit, I was playing those James Bond 007 games well under the age restriction, but you know what, I understood James Bond was only a idea/actor/game/fictional character. My mom made sure I knew that. But then again I always kinda understood that, even at a young age. But if there was an iffy game, my mom was there to check it out. ( Course it helps that the kind of games we3 like are all scifi and fantasy.. so its like.. duh.. common sense.. this isnt reallife).

/end
>.> Kinda went a bit ranty there, but there.

Lordlymight

10-11-2008, 08:05 PM

I do believe that the information that we process has an indirect correlation to how we think and act.

When combined with environment, genetics, and an individual's propensities, I think that "input" can be significant. The more positive the input, the more positive the individual. That is not to say that you are incapable of separating input from output, but it does have an effect, I would venture.

I know that if my child watches something like Lilo & Stitch, she is hyper, obnoxious, and tends to be prone to child-like violence (throwing toys, lashing out, etc). If she watches Baby Einstein, on the other hand, she will often sit quietly with one of her toys or sit with us while we are on the computer. I feel that both types of input are important. I don't want an overly hyper child, but I also don't want a docile, braindead oaf either.

For this reason, I do believe that games of all types should not only be played, but should continue to be made. Sometimes one lives vicariously through tv, books and games. Being allowed that opportunity to be the villain once in awhile may just be what it takes keep one from being the villain in real life. It must be moderated though with positive input as well to make for a balanced individual.

This completely ignores the negative effects of being addicted to gaming. Atrophy, lack of motivation, and an inability to separate one's self are horrible consequences to not putting the controller down once in awhile and getting your tail outside.

Takimi

10-11-2008, 08:12 PM

^-- Loves playing the villain sometimes in RPG's

However, I generally tend to be Neutral.... Chaotic Neutral actually.

hanymurder

10-11-2008, 08:23 PM

ShonenHero

10-11-2008, 08:28 PM

RikoRain

10-11-2008, 11:53 PM

For this reason, I do believe that games of all types should not only be played, but should continue to be made. Sometimes one lives vicariously through tv, books and games. Being allowed that opportunity to be the villain once in awhile may just be what it takes keep one from being the villain in real life. It must be moderated though with positive input as well to make for a balanced individual.

Lol.
Kinda like when me, my mom, or bro are really mad / aggravated, we like to pop in halo and PWNZORZ SOME COVENANTS lol. Ye Id rather pick up a game and shot something virtually than go off and smack someone.

This completely ignores the negative effects of being addicted to gaming. Atrophy, lack of motivation, and an inability to separate one's self are horrible consequences to not putting the controller down once in awhile and getting your tail outside.

Lol Some games tho are a workout in and of themselves.

Like when I play Halo.. man.. thats a workout for me. Not cus Im overweight or fat or lazy or dont do anything. Nah.. just cus I sit there, playing the game, and like 15 min later, Im sweating. Itll be FREEZING in the room, but Ill be sweating, and my heart will be goin like Ive been out walking or jogging.

But yeah, alot of the time when Im playing Fieta Ill find myself up walkign around, just cus I dont like to sit still solong. College.. jees, kidos out there, enjoy before-college school. Those 1-2 hour gym classes youre required to take? ENJOY THEM U.u
Im missing it now. The walking around campus to my classes. The 2 hour a day standing at attention or in formation in ROTC, and the 1-2 times a week hardcore workouts.. D:
ENJOY IT
D: Cus without it, yeah you get 2 more hours of gametime, but.. leg cramps arent fun. And backaches hurt -.-

hotsnowman

10-11-2008, 11:57 PM

Takimi

10-12-2008, 12:04 AM

What backaches?

*stretches*

Nope, no backaches...

Then again... I've been doing this a year now? Fiesta that is...

Internet junkie... far longer than that :D

Now, for me. my parents don't screen my games. Usually at christmas, we go shopping with relatives, and my aunt lets me pick out a game I'd like (I make sure it's not too expensive, I'm not greedy) and voila, new game. I make a wish list for mom and poof, that's done. My only issue is getting presents for everyone else -.-...

Lordlymight

10-12-2008, 01:05 AM

To be completely honest, I don't care about the debate.
This is my opinion, so don't flame me.
I think that there shouldn't be a president, that there shouldn't be laws,
Then none of the continents would hate/compete eachother, there would be no war,racism,bad-economy, or anything like that.
There wouldn't be any issues.
But I think that everyone that does murder,drug selling, or all that should just drop dead.
Anyone agree? ;)

To reply or not to reply...

Ok, I'll reply, after all, I replied to the classes question, and that was pretty ill-thought out as well...

Since I have already, in previous comments, discussed the "consequence-driven" model that our society follows, I won't repeat it. Suffice it to say that a lack of laws would break the very social structure of civilization.

So, you like playing this game. You like getting three squares a day. You enjoy being able to go out and get in your car and go wherever you like. These things are only possible in a world that has rules. Rules are what give focus and direction to an otherwise undirected species.

If there were no laws against ****, how many times a day does everyone think a person might get raped? Let's consider the lawlessness of a typical dark ages era raid.

The rules back then were simple. "I'm bigger, so its mine." So if you felt like it, and you were bigger, you would go into a village, take what you wanted (known today as pillaging), kill anyone and everyone, sometimes for fun, sometimes because they actually posed some inconvenience. And you finished off your day by raping as many of the townsfolk as you felt like.

When it was all done, just for good measure, you would burn the village to the ground.

This is anarchy folks. This is what leaderless people do. This is the historical proof that rules are necessary.

I know its all hip and edgy to love the idea of anarchy. I'm here to tell you that you are literally STUPID (as in the dictionary definition of someone who lacks cognitive capability) if you actually believe it would be better than what we have now. If you cannot see what the cost of a basic breakdown of our way of life would cause in suffering, loss of life, and an end of civilization as we know it, then you deserve to be present when such a thing occurs.

---

As a side note: Since I was the moderator for the question on war, I will not comment on war itself, but I will say that there were wars long before their were presidents...

---

Current topics are still open:
Good vs. Evil
What is the value of war
Outspark's business practices
Sentience
Apoline Guilds
New classes, are they good for Outspark
Anarchy

I highly recommend anyone who has an opinion on any of these topics to post them. You may find that your views are challenged. Trust me when I say that is a good thing. For you cannot be whole if you do not lead the examined life.

lenore_lurks

10-12-2008, 04:07 AM

Zappy, I summon thee!! *Throws Fiestaball, Zappy comes out and says...*

Wat

Good job, Zappy!! *Calls Zappy back*

This really made me lol IRL. Good call :D

I wanted to comment about Outspark's business practices... but I can't be bothered right now. Maybe later.

DF001

10-12-2008, 04:12 AM

New classes fail.

uber lag, would need new NPCs, new weapons, outspark would need to recode all the mobs so they drop greens/blues, they would need to recode kqs so they drop blues, quests would need more reward slots because there is a 6x quest that allows you to choose between 4 armors for lvl 60 (4 is max slots), etc

hanymurder

10-12-2008, 10:35 AM

To reply or not to reply...

Ok, I'll reply, after all, I replied to the classes question, and that was pretty ill-thought out as well...

Since I have already, in previous comments, discussed the "consequence-driven" model that our society follows, I won't repeat it. Suffice it to say that a lack of laws would break the very social structure of civilization.

So, you like playing this game. You like getting three squares a day. You enjoy being able to go out and get in your car and go wherever you like. These things are only possible in a world that has rules. Rules are what give focus and direction to an otherwise undirected species.

If there were no laws against ****, how many times a day does everyone think a person might get raped? Let's consider the lawlessness of a typical dark ages era raid.

The rules back then were simple. "I'm bigger, so its mine." So if you felt like it, and you were bigger, you would go into a village, take what you wanted (known today as pillaging), kill anyone and everyone, sometimes for fun, sometimes because they actually posed some inconvenience. And you finished off your day by raping as many of the townsfolk as you felt like.

When it was all done, just for good measure, you would burn the village to the ground.

This is anarchy folks. This is what leaderless people do. This is the historical proof that rules are necessary.

I know its all hip and edgy to love the idea of anarchy. I'm here to tell you that you are literally STUPID (as in the dictionary definition of someone who lacks cognitive capability) if you actually believe it would be better than what we have now. If you cannot see what the cost of a basic breakdown of our way of life would cause in suffering, loss of life, and an end of civilization as we know it, then you deserve to be present when such a thing occurs.

---

As a side note: Since I was the moderator for the question on war, I will not comment on war itself, but I will say that there were wars long before their were presidents...

---

Current topics are still open:
Good vs. Evil
What is the value of war
Outspark's business practices
Sentience
Apoline Guilds
New classes, are they good for Outspark
Anarchy

I highly recommend anyone who has an opinion on any of these topics to post them. You may find that your views are challenged. Trust me when I say that is a good thing. For you cannot be whole if you do not lead the examined life.

Whoa.. Lol you made me seem like an idiot D:
What would happen if we had a world dictator then? :)

Lordlymight

10-12-2008, 01:05 PM

What would happen if we had a world dictator then? :)

A world dictator, or to be more precise, a singular leader over all of mankind (dictator has direct negative connotation), and how the world would fare with one, are excellent topics, nice recovery...

How the world would fair if we were under the auspice of a singular world leader (or even a singular world government) is directly dependent on the leader.

This directly leads back to the concept of good and evil, and an individuals tendancy towards one or the other.

A benevolent leader will do what he or she thinks is right for his or her people. Malevolent leaders will use their power to satisfy their sadistic and wanton whims. A ambivalent leader will do whatever is best for his or herself.

Make no mistake, the latter two would have very similar results.

Let's assume that through some incredible means, the world came under the rule of a single benevolent human being (a state know as a "Father Knows Best" society). From here on we are going into strong opinion on my part. I believe in the Father Knows Best model very strongly. I encourage you to consider it from your own viewpoint before making any decisions on the matter.

Society would benefit if for no other reason than the people come first. The leader and the leader's government would do what ever was best for the people that they rule. This leadership though, would not be hazed by the gross entanglements of bureaucracy and representative leadership. Citizens, who often mirror the values of the society they are born into, would take on some of these traits, becoming, in general, more benevolent themselves. Since there would be no more need for borders, people would live where their talents and abilities were most useful. Some of the vast tracks of land could be populated to ease the swelling of urban areas. The need for war would immediately cease, as there is no longer an of the many reasons in place for war. A global cross-breeding would spell the end to racial separation as humans slowly became a single vast mixture. Culture would thrive not on an individual basis, but a world basis. In closing, while history tells us that such a society is impossible, it is a pretty powerful fantasy to believe in.

On the other hand, we, as a species, could not survive an evil (or even ambivalent) world dominator. Genocide, discontent, hatred, corruption at the local level and life without consequences would lead to a continuous struggle to survive. A struggle that could never be one. The last of our race would die with their hands at each other's throats...

Beckywolf2

10-12-2008, 01:14 PM

Rules, rules are good, they keep us living happily xD
Rules can be broken though :/ That can lead to punishment...
Some people may argue that the people who punish them are evil, some people say they deserve to be punished, but some people call them evil and some people call the person that broke the law to begin with evil. xD

Which one is right and more importantly which one is wrong? :/

Liala

10-12-2008, 01:24 PM

I think there are too many debates, you need a moderator to limit the number of debates, and progress the current ones when they reach a stand still.

I’ll make a post for each one.

Regarding People being Good or Evil

I agree with DF001 and Lordly, that these are concepts and relative.

I mostly agree with RikoRain, and many other philosophers, such as Locke, that we are blank slates, but I do not entirely agree, as I do not dismiss the genetic dispositions/nature side of the nature vs nurture debate. I do believe however that when it comes to “good or evil” nurture, plays the larger role, as I completely agree with ILiKePieLoRDoFKNiVeS (I typed that man, damn you and your kooky caps), that circumstance, situation and therefore nurture has the greater influence on actions.

I also agree with Araiven Valen, that Lordlymight debates from a western point of view.

I say this for a different reason, although Araiven’s observation is also correct. What first tipped me off to this was when Lordly stated that most people are “Ambivalent”, with their main concern being themselves. This is not entirely true.

Most western people are “Ambivalent”, or more properly, using the proper self construal names, “independent”/”individualists”, however most Eastern people are “Interdependent”/collectivists

Interdependent/collectivists are more likely to put the group first. So they do not make decisions “based on what will happen to them”, but how it will affect the group.

And since the majority of the world’s population lies in Asia, the majority of people are collectivists, and do not put their needs before the needs of others.

Now on to Good and evil!

Lordly is on the right track when he related the word deviant to evil. But it is not as simple as that, as ILiKePie, and many others have pointed out. A deviant is merely a person who goes against or lives outside the “norms” of their society. A woman who wears white shoes after Labour Day may be labelled a “deviant” in our culture, but that fashion crime is hardly “evil”. There are people who believe income tax is unconstitutional and do not pay, their behaviour is “deviant” but it isn’t “evil”.

Evil is much more complex than that. Murder is evil, but what about if it is in self-defence, then many would argue that it is not evil. To get to the truth of what is really evil, we must first strip away cultural subtext and get to the barebones of how people interact with each other.
Since I mentioned murder, let’s start with that.

Why is murder evil?

Common answer would be, because taking the life of another human being is wrong.

Why is taking the life of another human being wrong?

Answers may vary on this, such as life is sacred, my religion says it is, however then people will turn around and defend the death penalty, or killing in self-defence..

If we dig deep enough we will reach the real answer which is this..

Despite being Individualists or Collectivists, it is a fact that human beings are social/cultural animals. That does not mean that we are all chatty or like fine art, but that we survive best in a group. We are a group animal, social animals, cultural animals.

There are other animals that are social, and cultures can be found in other animals however it pales in comparison to us, and that is because we rely so heavily on it to survive that it became the evolutionary trait that made us the top of the food chain that we are today. If we pitted one man with nothing against a lion, the lion would win, if we pitted 100 men against the lion, the winner is man.

It is from this reliance on the group that we developed language, and society. It is the reason for our laws, and the root of the concepts of good and evil.

[I][If you have doubts on the importance of other people in your daily life, which some individualists may have, let me put them to rest before I move on. Consider the last thing you ate. Did you grow it yourself? Or was the ingredients for it grown on various farms, the farmers of which bought tools from a store, the tools made by someone else, designed by a different person, the food shipped on a truck, put together by someone else, using a recipe developed by someone else, packaged by someone else, brought to the store by someone else, the store which is run by someone else, where you or someone else bought the food, using money that you earned working for someone else, perhaps cooked on an oven, eaten on a plate with eating utensils at a table while sitting on a chair, all of which was sold, built and designed by someone else; eaten in your home, which was most likely built and designed by someone other than yourself. Mankind has developed and prospered thanks to the work of the group.]

So in most simplistic terms, what is good is what benefits the group, and what is evil, hurts or endangers the group.

Why is murder evil?

Because someone who might have been a productive member of the group was taken away.

Why is self defence okay?

Because someone who might be a productive member of the group was threatened by someone who wished to take away a productive member of the group, therefore trying to do something anti-productive to the group; the possibly productive member who was in danger instead removed the anti-productive threat, which is more positive for the group then if it was the other way around. Therefore it is not “good” or ideal, but it is okay, and not “evil”.

This also explains why stealing and ****, judging by jail time, are not as “evil” as murder, those crimes, unless in large scale, do not endanger the group as much as losing a productive member does, but they do hurt the group and are therefore “bad”/ lesser "evils".

Are people good or evil?

No, there are no good people or evil people; there are just people who do good and evil deeds.

We may judge them as good or evil, but this is merely the Actor/observer bias at work.

The AOB is basically the difference in which you judge others and yourself.

Ex:

Observer: You’re at school walking in the hall to your next class, and someone runs by and almost knocks you over. You think... How rude! That person is rude!

Actor: You’re at school and you get a call that your sibling/parent was in an accident, your absolutely frantic with worry, you rush down the hall to the exit so you can go to the hospital, The halls are crowded as everyone is heading to their next class, you bump into a few people in your rush.

As the observer, you automatically think the actions of the other person is due to some inner personality trait of that person, such as them being rude.

As the actor, you know that you were only rude because of the situation, and under different circumstances you wouldn’t do that.

It’s easier for us to say Hitler is evil then it is to say under certain circumstances any one could do what Hitler did. However experiments have shown, that under certain circumstances, any of us are capable of “evil”. Perfect examples of this are Milgram experiment and Stanford prison experiment.

Did these people do Evil things? Yes. Are they Evil people? No. Were they born evil? No. Were they put in to a situation that influenced them into doing “evil”, Yes. Did they think they were “Evil”? No.

We like to label people based on their actions, but we don’t want people to label us by our negative actions.

Liala

10-12-2008, 01:26 PM

What, if any, is the value of war?

First I’d like to say, I am not pro-war, I prefer peace, and diplomacy.
That said, this is the value of war.

1. War helps decrease the population.

Throughout history, overpopulation has had many negative side effects for every civilization that has suffered with it, depending on the time, it can cause, famine, lack of jobs, increased poverty, increased crime, angry public and so on, each problem leading to the next. The true irony is that overpopulation is often a side effect of prosperity.

So do you:
a. Thin the heard by killing your own people?
b. Try your hardest to keep people unhappy
c. Create population control policies
d. War.

If you go a. The people are NOT going to like that, and how do you decide which people to kill? Do you kill those from a certain heritage like the Turks did to the Armenians, or those with a certain religion, like the Germans to the Jewish, the minority like the Rwandans and the Tutis. Maybe you could kill those who disagree with your political ideology, and have a civil war, like the Chinese when the ROC hunted the PRC and the PRC then hunted the ROC.

But genocide is rarely popular, and even if you manage to get your own population to go along with it, other nations whose populations start to swell with an increase of refugees won’t be too happy, People can always change their political affiliation like the 400,000 ROCs did when the war began to favour the PRC. Err maybe we can do what Johnathan Swift jokingly suggested for the irish during their famine, and eat babies..oh that won’t go over well and it may cause health problems. Blast. And to do these things, you’re going to have to take out all those who may object to it, like the intellectuals, if you go the civil war route, you’re going to have a bunch of infrastructure to repair, egads, there has got to be a better way to lower population quickly.

b. Ah yes, we could try to keep the people unhappy, perhaps like the Military Junta who took over Burma and severely oppresses the people, using them as disposable slaves whist keeping all the wealth for themselves. But this causes other problems, the country is poor, many of the wealthier countries won’t trade with them. The populace isn’t that productive, and despite being 40th in the world in terms of land area, they’re 24th in population. Okay people are too adaptable, this isn’t working.

c. population control policies.. This is a bit easier in modern times, since we have various forms of birth control, however it isn’t an fast solution to the problem by any means, and it’s quite hard to enforce. China is most famous for their population control efforts, and they are not having an easy time of it. People in urban areas are allowed 1 child, but some families have more then one, eep, do we kill the 2nd one?

No no no, China has imposed a fine for an additional child, one that a working family would have a very hard time affording, but the more affluent should be able to afford multiple children. In rural areas Chinese families are allowed 2 children, but there is a cultural desire for a male child, which leads to those infamous cases of female infanticide. To deal with that, if a rural family has 2 females, they are allowed an additional chance to produce a male, so some can have up to 3 children. There is no limit on how many children minorities can have, and if one person in the couple is a minority, both get classified as a minority. This is going to take awhile.

. *taps fingers* and uh oh, a couple generations down the road there is another problem, large population decrease, crap crap crap, how do we deal with this?!, ok ok now if you are an single child, and your partner is a single child, you can have 2 children.

Err there’s another problem now.. due to the cultural desire for male children, there are more males then females, the males are now importing wives from other countries, making them a minority couple, and their children minorities, and thus not bound by the population control policy and free to have as many children as they want. We’re going to have to make tons of laws, and monitor our people closely, Not only does this take a long time, it is a lot of work!

d. Ah and then we come to War! With war we can kill multiple birds with 1 stone!
Decrease our own population, gain some spoils...maybe more land, money, resources. It will also boost our economy, open up some more jobs as people leave to fight, and create new ones to support the fight. Yes war is the perfect solution to quickly decrease our population.

2. Boost the economy.

As stated above, war not only helps decrease the population quickly, it also gives a boost to the economy.

3. Creates Nationalism

Regardless if you win or lose, war creates a sense of nationalism amongst its people by giving them a shared burden and creating a national identity. Mm unity

4. Get something you do not have, but want, such as Land, and Resources

I want. Gimme. You no gimme. I take. yay mine.

5. Force your will on to others

Ah pffft go figure some countries don’t want you telling them what to do for some reason. A good example is the Opium war. China was the greatest in nation in the world for a very long time, and they knew it. Outsiders were considered barbarians, and while they’d export some of their goods, they felt no need to import crappy barbarian goods, when they had plenty of resources at home. The British, live on a small island and so they lurrrveee to trade, and reaaaallly wanted to trade with China, but China wasn’t interested in trading with hairy sea barbarians. The Chinese emperor even formally hardcore dissed the English King, who had sent the emperor birthday gifts and wanted to arrange trade agreements.

Eventually the English merchants found something the Chinese people wanted and didn’t have...Opium. So they began selling opium that they acquired in their India Colony to smugglers, who then sold it in China. The Chinese government didn’t like this, for some reason getting their population addicted to an extremely addictive and harmful drug didn’t really appeal to them, which is why it was illegal, and now those hairy sea barbarians are getting rich off of it! Grrrr. The Chinese destroyed tons of Opium, which made the English Merchants lose loads of money. The merchants went home and was like waaaa you make them pay for what they destroyed or you pay us! Many in the English government felt the Chinese had done the right thing...how ever... they reaaaaallly wanted to trade with China. So they went to war.

China lost, due to superior English technology, a boat that could go up stream, and was forced by treaty to open up more trading ports (and to give England Hong Kong, which contained a kick *** port, one of the best in the world.).

Liala

10-12-2008, 01:27 PM

Liala

10-12-2008, 01:28 PM

Which guild is the best apoline guild and who is the best master.

The_Famous duh, cause it’s mine.

And me, because I rock. :cool:

Beckywolf2

10-12-2008, 01:34 PM

^-- lol xD I think everyone's guild is the best, cause like good and evil everyone has different views of "best". xD

DF001

10-12-2008, 01:37 PM

Which guild is the best apoline guild and who is the best master.

The_Famous duh, cause it’s mine.

And me, because I rock. :cool:

Maiya officially pwned this thread.

RikoRain

10-12-2008, 04:15 PM

A world dictator, or to be more precise, a singular leader over all of mankind (dictator has direct negative connotation), and how the world would fare with one, are excellent topics, nice recovery...

How the world would fair if we were under the auspice of a singular world leader (or even a singular world government) is directly dependent on the leader.

This directly leads back to the concept of good and evil, and an individuals tendancy towards one or the other.

A benevolent leader will do what he or she thinks is right for his or her people. Malevolent leaders will use their power to satisfy their sadistic and wanton whims. A ambivalent leader will do whatever is best for his or herself.

Make no mistake, the latter two would have very similar results.

Heres where the idea of MULTIPLE leaders, or a coalition is better.
Because honestly, 1 person having to keep in mind race, ethnicity, social class, diff structures, climates, etc, of all the people in the world? No. Not possible.

I could understand tho if it was like.. 1 person representing each "group", with a main leader. It follows that normally happens all over the world. Even in a classroom of kids, youll have 1-2 "leaders" and the other students point out other ends. Sometimes the teacher is the leader, but on a debate, all the students point out all the sides to the debate. Therefore they cover all odds.

I could see that as a possibility in teh far future, but not just 1 person.

Lordlymight

10-12-2008, 04:30 PM

Heres where the idea of MULTIPLE leaders, or a coalition is better.
Because honestly, 1 person having to keep in mind race, ethnicity, social class, diff structures, climates, etc, of all the people in the world? No. Not possible.

I could understand tho if it was like.. 1 person representing each "group", with a main leader. It follows that normally happens all over the world. Even in a classroom of kids, youll have 1-2 "leaders" and the other students point out other ends. Sometimes the teacher is the leader, but on a debate, all the students point out all the sides to the debate. Therefore they cover all odds.

I could see that as a possibility in teh far future, but not just 1 person.

Ah, but see, that is my point. A single benevolent leader would make such things as "groups" unnecessary

RikoRain

10-12-2008, 04:54 PM

Ah, but see, that is my point. A single benevolent leader would make such things as "groups" unnecessary

But no single 1 person is that benevolent, nor able to keep in mind certain things.

And there will always be groups as long as there are different jobs, different abilities of people, etc. Were all diff, meaning our environment and circumstances and abilities are different, meaning there will always be groups.

(btw can someone link me to where it says the new siggy size? I wanna make sure my new one is gonna be ok)

hanymurder

10-12-2008, 05:51 PM

You will never know unless you try! :D

hotsnowman

10-12-2008, 05:54 PM

dude u ppl talk to much
i dont even have this many words in my essay's for school
maybe thats y im getting a U. but o well yall have too much free time

UzumakiW

10-12-2008, 05:56 PM

Okay, let's get started :p

What, if any, is the value of cursing and bad language?
!

There doesn't seem to be really any actual use for it except for, in times, show anger or annoyance. In other times, people add it to a sentence as a sentence enhancer or something like that.

Me, personally, I feel I curse a bit too much at times. Been trying to use substitutes in place of cursing, but since I'm kind of used to it, I tend to forget I'm trying to steer away from those words. >.<

The use of Video games, good or bad for you, me, and lil Tim
(Video games being bad or good for a person)

This has always been a big debate topic for me. I've done speeches and reports on the topic of "Do video games cause violence in kids?" My answer: No, they do not cause violence. They may inspire a kid to do violent acts, but they do not cause a kid to do them (if that makes any sense).

I believe video games can be both good and bad for a person. They can be good because they can relieve stress. Imagine; having a bad day at work or school. You finally come home, sit down, and just play a game either by yourself or with other people. Sounds pretty nice to me and definitely helps me relieve stress.

However, too much video game usage can definitely be bad for a person. Best example was the guy who died while playing WoW for days straight without eating anything, drinking anything, or going to the bathroom. Now, I will argue that it was his fault and definitely not the fault of the video game because this guy had no self control. However, in the hands of a person like this, video games can be a bad thing for certain people.

Now, as for violent video games. First off, I do think that stupid kids do commit crimes because they get inspired by video games. However, I do not think the blame should be placed on the game. It should be placed on the kid and depending on where the kid played the game, his parents because let's face it, if your parents don't allow you to play violent games, it's not that hard to still play them, so I don't think you can blame the parents in every case.

Me personally, I've been playing violent video games for a long time. I've never had an urge to kill someone. Many people are like this, which is why I don't think game companies should be blamed for violent acts. The kids should be punished. All people are doing by blaming the video game companies is letting the kid off the hook and blaming someone else. A person should have to pay for what they did wrong or they will not learn.

Kind of went off on a branch there XD. So, in simple, "Are video games good or bad for a person?":

They are both, depending on the situation.

To be completely honest, I don't care about the debate.
This is my opinion, so don't flame me.
I think that there shouldn't be a president, that there shouldn't be laws,
Then none of the continents would hate/compete eachother, there would be no war,racism,bad-economy, or anything like that.
There wouldn't be any issues.
But I think that everyone that does murder,drug selling, or all that should just drop dead.
Anyone agree? ;)

Eh...it would not be that easy. Personally, I do not support the thought of anarchy. I know you said that murderers, drug dealers, etc should drop dead, but honestly, that would not ever happen, and in a state of anarchy, these statics on the two would at least double.

There will always be hate. Sure, maybe not toward other countries as a whole, but there will always be hate. Hell, there's hatred in our own countries going on.

There will still be wars, maybe not in between nations, but between gangs and stuff like that.

Racism will still be around, even without a government. Not all governments influence racism. It's usually the people who are racist. So, racism will definitely still be around.

The only thing that will disappear is the feeling of safety going to the store, walking down the street, or even sitting in your own house. In a state of anarchy, anything goes. You could be killed right in front of your own house, and it'll be surprising if that ends up in the news or the newspaper because that will be considered everyday life.

Please don't take this as flaming, I always say this stuff when talking to people about the thought of anaracy ;).

hotsnowman

10-12-2008, 06:03 PM

Okay, let's get started :p

There doesn't seem to be really any actual use for it except for, in times, show anger or annoyance. In other times, people add it to a sentence as a sentence enhancer or something like that.

Me, personally, I feel I curse a bit too much at times. Been trying to use substitutes in place of cursing, but since I'm kind of used to it, I tend to forget I'm trying to steer away from those words. >.<

This has always been a big debate topic for me. I've done speeches and reports on the topic of "Do video games cause violence in kids?" My answer: No, they do not cause violence. They may inspire a kid to do violent acts, but they do not cause a kid to do them (if that makes any sense).

I believe video games can be both good and bad for a person. They can be good because they can relieve stress. Imagine; having a bad day at work or school. You finally come home, sit down, and just play a game either by yourself or with other people. Sounds pretty nice to me and definitely helps me relieve stress.

However, too much video game usage can definitely be bad for a person. Best example was the guy who died while playing WoW for days straight without eating anything, drinking anything, or going to the bathroom. Now, I will argue that it was his fault and definitely not the fault of the video game because this guy had no self control. However, in the hands of a person like this, video games can be a bad thing for certain people.

Now, as for violent video games. First off, I do think that stupid kids do commit crimes because they get inspired by video games. However, I do not think the blame should be placed on the game. It should be placed on the kid and depending on where the kid played the game, his parents because let's face it, if your parents don't allow you to play violent games, it's not that hard to still play them, so I don't think you can blame the parents in every case.

Me personally, I've been playing violent video games for a long time. I've never had an urge to kill someone. Many people are like this, which is why I don't think game companies should be blamed for violent acts. The kids should be punished. All people are doing by blaming the video game companies is letting the kid off the hook and blaming someone else. A person should have to pay for what they did wrong or they will not learn.

Kind of went off on a branch there XD. So, in simple, "Are video games good or bad for a person?":

They are both, depending on the situation.

Eh...it would not be that easy. Personally, I do not support the thought of anarchy. I know you said that murderers, drug dealers, etc should drop dead, but honestly, that would not ever happen, and in a state of anarchy, these statics on the two would at least double.

There will always be hate. Sure, maybe not toward other countries as a whole, but there will always be hate. Hell, there's hatred in our own countries going on.

There will still be wars, maybe not in between nations, but between gangs and stuff like that.

Racism will still be around, even without a government. Not all governments influence racism. It's usually the people who are racist. So, racism will definitely still be around.

The only thing that will disappear is the feeling of safety going to the store, walking down the street, or even sitting in your own house. In a state of anarchy, anything goes. You could be killed right in front of your own house, and it'll be surprising if that ends up in the news or the newspaper because that will be considered everyday life.

Please don't take this as flaming, I always say this stuff when talking to people about the thought of anaracy ;).

actually if u ask me i agree with her
and i myself think that the government is the reason for racism
the most widely known racism is between whites and blacks
which started off with slavery, so just think about it if slavery was never allowed racism wouldnt have started because after slavery times whites discriminated against blacks because they thought of them as lesser ppl(thus the reason y sum whites didnt like blacks) and like they wernt as good as them (thus the reason sum blacks dont like whites)

o and btw i totally agree with u about cursing it is used to show strong emossion in most situations amd im trying to stop cursing but sumtimes sum ppl just make me so dang mad

ShonenHero

10-12-2008, 06:44 PM

dude u ppl talk to much
i dont even have this many words in my essay's for school
maybe thats y im getting a U. but o well yall have too much free time

You gotta look at the bright side of things...

*Taco at school*
Teacher: And for next monday, kids, I want you to write an essay on the value of war/the value of language/the concept of anarchy/the meaning of sentience/the concepts of good an evil
Taco: *Thinks* Hm, I think I already know where I`m gonna get that...

*Points finger* You should be thankful, young man!

hotsnowman

10-12-2008, 06:47 PM

You gotta look at the bright side of things...

*Taco at school*
Teacher: And for next monday, kids, I want you to write an essay on the value of war/the value of language/the concept of anarchy/the meaning of sentience/the concepts of good an evil
Taco: *Thinks* Hm, I think I already know where I`m gonna get that...

*Points finger* You should be thankful, young man!

or i can tell my teacher to shove it and just write a amazing essay in advisory the day that its due

Lordlymight

10-12-2008, 08:19 PM

But no single 1 person is that benevolent, nor able to keep in mind certain things.

And there will always be groups as long as there are different jobs, different abilities of people, etc. Were all diff, meaning our environment and circumstances and abilities are different, meaning there will always be groups.

Herein lies the difference between philosophy and reality. We know that not only will there never be a benevolent dictator, but that no human being will ever rule the whole of humanity (unless some event happens to destroy most of humanity).

And you are correct, there will always be those that separate themselves from others while gathering others to themselves. Its the nature of things, so to speak (and has a great deal to do with our social behavior, as well as the social behavior of pack and herd animals). But the lines upon which those groups would be drawn would change dramatically. I would much rather be categorized as "one of those Left-Brained guys" as opposed to "one of those white guys." One is a tangible and meaningful difference from my fellow man, the other serves no purpose whatsoever.

There doesn't seem to be really any actual use for it except for, in times, show anger or annoyance. In other times, people add it to a sentence as a sentence enhancer or something like that.

Me, personally, I feel I curse a bit too much at times. Been trying to use substitutes in place of cursing, but since I'm kind of used to it, I tend to forget I'm trying to steer away from those words. >.<

So my new question would be, does a word, without the use of a specific curse word (such as replacing the word hell with heck) in any way change the fact that you are still cursing?

Eh...it would not be that easy. Personally, I do not support the thought of anarchy. I know you said that murderers, drug dealers, etc should drop dead, but honestly, that would not ever happen, and in a state of anarchy, these statics on the two would at least double.

There will always be hate. Sure, maybe not toward other countries as a whole, but there will always be hate. Hell, there's hatred in our own countries going on.

There will still be wars, maybe not in between nations, but between gangs and stuff like that.

Racism will still be around, even without a government. Not all governments influence racism. It's usually the people who are racist. So, racism will definitely still be around.

The only thing that will disappear is the feeling of safety going to the store, walking down the street, or even sitting in your own house. In a state of anarchy, anything goes. You could be killed right in front of your own house, and it'll be surprising if that ends up in the news or the newspaper because that will be considered everyday life.

Please don't take this as flaming, I always say this stuff when talking to people about the thought of anaracy ;).

All's I can say for sure is that if the world goes to toilet, at least I'm big enough to enforce my will on others.

actually if u ask me i agree with her
and i myself think that the government is the reason for racism
the most widely known racism is between whites and blacks
which started off with slavery, so just think about it if slavery was never allowed racism wouldnt have started because after slavery times whites discriminated against blacks because they thought of them as lesser ppl(thus the reason y sum whites didnt like blacks) and like they wernt as good as them (thus the reason sum blacks dont like whites)

I have an assignment for you snowman. I would like you to do a few minutes of research and tell me who sold the original white settlers of the American continent all those African slaves.

Also, I feel it is important to inform you that slavery has been around a very very long time. The Greeks, considered to be one of the most enlightened societies of the ancient world used slavery. The Aztecs would take the survivors of their wars and trade them as slave. The Great Wall of China and the Pyramids of Giza, two of the most remarkable landmarks of all time were built entirely with slave labor.

The whites versus blacks racism of the U.S. is well known in the U.S. Now, let's assume you live in China. Do you think that you care about racism of whites and blacks, or maybe do you think that the racism between mainland Chinese and Tibetan.

Careful when you make generalized statements. There is a whole big world out there.

---

@Maiya

I promise I have replies for your very good posts. But dinner first, then I will get back to this...

ShonenHero

10-12-2008, 08:27 PM

Also, I feel it is important to inform you that slavery has been around a very very long time. The Greeks, considered to be one of the most enlightened societies of the ancient world used slavery. The Aztecs would take the survivors of their wars and trade them as slave. The Great Wall of China and the Pyramids of Giza, two of the most remarkable landmarks of all time were built entirely with slave labor.

Fake. We all know it was aliens who built them

I`m sorry, I`m just feeling silly at the moment. I`ll reply to these wonderful topics when I`m able to, but at the moment I can`t...

hotsnowman

10-12-2008, 09:02 PM

Herein lies the difference between philosophy and reality. We know that not only will there never be a benevolent dictator, but that no human being will ever rule the whole of humanity (unless some event happens to destroy most of humanity).

And you are correct, there will always be those that separate themselves from others while gathering others to themselves. Its the nature of things, so to speak (and has a great deal to do with our social behavior, as well as the social behavior of pack and herd animals). But the lines upon which those groups would be drawn would change dramatically. I would much rather be categorized as "one of those Left-Brained guys" as opposed to "one of those white guys." One is a tangible and meaningful difference from my fellow man, the other serves no purpose whatsoever.

So my new question would be, does a word, without the use of a specific curse word (such as replacing the word hell with heck) in any way change the fact that you are still cursing?

All's I can say for sure is that if the world goes to toilet, at least I'm big enough to enforce my will on others.

I have an assignment for you snowman. I would like you to do a few minutes of research and tell me who sold the original white settlers of the American continent all those African slaves.

Also, I feel it is important to inform you that slavery has been around a very very long time. The Greeks, considered to be one of the most enlightened societies of the ancient world used slavery. The Aztecs would take the survivors of their wars and trade them as slave. The Great Wall of China and the Pyramids of Giza, two of the most remarkable landmarks of all time were built entirely with slave labor.

The whites versus blacks racism of the U.S. is well known in the U.S. Now, let's assume you live in China. Do you think that you care about racism of whites and blacks, or maybe do you think that the racism between mainland Chinese and Tibetan.

Careful when you make generalized statements. There is a whole big world out there.

---

@Maiya

I promise I have replies for your very good posts. But dinner first, then I will get back to this...

idk about the world only the part thats in the state of wisconsin
and wat about the summerians 1 of the 1st civilizations of the world
yea they had slaves but they only enslaved the encaptured ppl from war and ppl who had debts they didnt have enough money to pay but with both instances they were able to become free and they were treated with much more sencerity and respect than that of the slaves in america

RikoRain

10-13-2008, 08:09 AM

actually if u ask me i agree with her
and i myself think that the government is the reason for racism
the most widely known racism is between whites and blacks
which started off with slavery, so just think about it if slavery was never allowed racism wouldnt have started because after slavery times whites discriminated against blacks because they thought of them as lesser ppl(thus the reason y sum whites didnt like blacks) and like they wernt as good as them (thus the reason sum blacks dont like whites)

Government isnt the problem for racism.

If you think about it actually, slavery goes way way way back, back to Egyptians and stuff. But back then it was more a slavery connected to eithre social class (lowers being slaves), or it was so far back that it was during the "I have an army, I invade you, I control you, you now all obey me be my slaves" era. It isnt just between blacks and whites. Back then it was between whites and whites, blacks and blacks, and mixed together.

Youre also forgetting that groups in Africa would literally sell their fellows to the Europeans for money.

Racism.. the govt is trying hard to get rid of it, but the main problem being now is that its turned around. Im not trying to be rude, but seriously, go somewhere, and if the black dude has a problem and you dont with something -- omg.. its racism.. even if its just luck.. omg.. its racism. And who is it screaming its racism? The black dude.
Its an insult to call someone "black", but they call us "white" all the time.
Its an insult to call them the N word, even tho they use it to refer to themselves and their "brudders" all the time, yet they can call us "cracker" and "whitey" all the time.

I understand they want "revengE" or "payment", but seriously.. I didnt hurt them. I idnt personally enslave them. Its not MY fault. I wasnt born yet. Therefore I dont feel I should have to degrace myself jus tso they can feel important while they insult me.

Im sorry, but it ticks me off. I hate it when any black pulls out the racism card. Its stupid. Its NOT about racism. Its jut their luck of the draw if the coke machine worked for me and now doesnt work for some black dude. And most of thetime its the "whining syndrome" I liketo call it. Whine til you get it. Thats what Isee most aorund here in Houston. Whine whine whine, claim racism, whine some more, claim its social class, whine, demand payment, demand free stuff, claim its racism..

Funny thing, I saw some dude go to a store and buy something. He was short a penny or two, so the cashier said it was ok, it sjust a penny, and sold him the stuff. Black dude comes in, gets some stuff, but hes short more like 5$. When the cashier refuses to sell him the stuff for this "discount", he curses, yells its racism, and storms out.

-.- No. Govt isnt the problem for racism, its all those fools outthere who want free stuff, so they yell its racism.

Kinda like the peope lwho came over in Katrina >.> "ITS RACISM WE WANT MONEY TO REBUILD", -gives em 10k to build a new house-, then they go buy thing sliek big screen tvs, jet skiis, or a new car. -.- I FULLY understand if Fema refuses to help them now, they abused it -.-
Worse yet, when we got hit by Ike, it took them a few days to sort it out, and I tell you, our state/whatever was like "TAKE OVER FEMA ;~; PLEASE?" and they did, and did a WONDERFUL job.

-.- Racism cause: the people who are racist, and scream "THIS IS RACISM, ITS BULL" when they dont get what they want

--------------------BTW HOTSNOWMAN-------------------
Your sig is too big. The max size is 600x500, height to width. Your sig stretches my screen ><

UzumakiW

10-13-2008, 04:16 PM

So my new question would be, does a word, without the use of a specific curse word (such as replacing the word hell with heck) in any way change the fact that you are still cursing?

That is a good way to put it, though, the way I see it, people would rather hear the word heck then hell. It seems that, to a person that curses often, such as myself, the only ones who view cursing as a problem are those around him/her that find it offensive. As I've said, I don't think it serves too much of a purpose, other than those I've stated, but I don't really view cursing as a problem, unless someone constantly does it in places/situations that don't call for it (IE in class or church). They're just words, so I don't really think it's a big problem.

RikoRain

10-13-2008, 05:06 PM

That is a good way to put it, though, the way I see it, people would rather hear the word heck then hell. It seems that, to a person that curses often, such as myself, the only ones who view cursing as a problem are those around him/her that find it offensive. As I've said, I don't think it serves too much of a purpose, other than those I've stated, but I don't really view cursing as a problem, unless someone constantly does it in places/situations that don't call for it (IE in class or church). They're just words, so I don't really think it's a big problem.

Lol personally Id rather hear Hell than heck said. Simple because listen to the words.. hell has a less harsh sound than heck.

Then again i have that odd sensitive hearing, certain harsh sounding words sound just as bad to me as a curse word does to say.. some christian or something. In the end theyre all words tho :D

hotsnowman

10-13-2008, 06:06 PM

Government isnt the problem for racism.

If you think about it actually, slavery goes way way way back, back to Egyptians and stuff. But back then it was more a slavery connected to eithre social class (lowers being slaves), or it was so far back that it was during the "I have an army, I invade you, I control you, you now all obey me be my slaves" era. It isnt just between blacks and whites. Back then it was between whites and whites, blacks and blacks, and mixed together.

Youre also forgetting that groups in Africa would literally sell their fellows to the Europeans for money.

Racism.. the govt is trying hard to get rid of it, but the main problem being now is that its turned around. Im not trying to be rude, but seriously, go somewhere, and if the black dude has a problem and you dont with something -- omg.. its racism.. even if its just luck.. omg.. its racism. And who is it screaming its racism? The black dude.
Its an insult to call someone "black", but they call us "white" all the time.
Its an insult to call them the N word, even tho they use it to refer to themselves and their "brudders" all the time, yet they can call us "cracker" and "whitey" all the time.

I understand they want "revengE" or "payment", but seriously.. I didnt hurt them. I idnt personally enslave them. Its not MY fault. I wasnt born yet. Therefore I dont feel I should have to degrace myself jus tso they can feel important while they insult me.

Im sorry, but it ticks me off. I hate it when any black pulls out the racism card. Its stupid. Its NOT about racism. Its jut their luck of the draw if the coke machine worked for me and now doesnt work for some black dude. And most of thetime its the "whining syndrome" I liketo call it. Whine til you get it. Thats what Isee most aorund here in Houston. Whine whine whine, claim racism, whine some more, claim its social class, whine, demand payment, demand free stuff, claim its racism..

Funny thing, I saw some dude go to a store and buy something. He was short a penny or two, so the cashier said it was ok, it sjust a penny, and sold him the stuff. Black dude comes in, gets some stuff, but hes short more like 5$. When the cashier refuses to sell him the stuff for this "discount", he curses, yells its racism, and storms out.

-.- No. Govt isnt the problem for racism, its all those fools outthere who want free stuff, so they yell its racism.

Kinda like the peope lwho came over in Katrina >.> "ITS RACISM WE WANT MONEY TO REBUILD", -gives em 10k to build a new house-, then they go buy thing sliek big screen tvs, jet skiis, or a new car. -.- I FULLY understand if Fema refuses to help them now, they abused it -.-
Worse yet, when we got hit by Ike, it took them a few days to sort it out, and I tell you, our state/whatever was like "TAKE OVER FEMA ;~; PLEASE?" and they did, and did a WONDERFUL job.

-.- Racism cause: the people who are racist, and scream "THIS IS RACISM, ITS BULL" when they dont get what they want

--------------------BTW HOTSNOWMAN-------------------
Your sig is too big. The max size is 600x500, height to width. Your sig stretches my screen ><

yea i know ppl like that but i've never personally pulled the race card and if u didnt see my post after that i said that slavery started back then a little b4 the egyptions time

Takimi

10-13-2008, 11:29 PM

Lordlymight

10-14-2008, 12:19 AM

I have a topic for you.

How does one determine intelligance?

Nice... I have my canned answer from college. I do believe this to be true, even if it is from a paper I wrote many years ago.

Intelligence, in the realms of sentient beings, is defined as a combination of the following traits:
The ability to learn and retain information (in other words, build neural pathways)
The ability to take learned information and make inferences (cognitive capacity)
The ability to derive new information from inferences and reapply (creativity)

One must be careful to not confuse logic and analysis with intelligence. Logic and analysis is but one form of intelligence, with what is known as "global cognizance" acting as the other (also known as linear versus non-linear thinking).

Make no mistake, education is to intelligence what bowflex is to biceps. The more educated one becomes, the more "exercise" their intelligence has been given, and is therefore a good "rough estimate" of a person's intelligence. That said, in order to truly determine an individual's intelligence, the above traits must be placed under the scope.

Intelligence tests must be egocentric to the population it is testing. You cannot test a Chinese native with a test written for a British native. Also, the bias of the tester must be taken into account. For instance, if I was conducting the test, I would have a strong bias for both left-brained intelligence, high education, and Western-centric ways of thought. Therefore, a tester with biases of his or her own, but at least without those three, must also be present.

Needless to say, it is almost impossible to find the perfect test.

RikoRain

10-14-2008, 08:13 AM

How does one determine intelligence?

I believe, that intelligence is the ability to reason, to ask questions, to actively seek answers and to consciously be aware of your actions and self.

That being said, I could easily say that most of the people in my 5th period class lack intelligence when it comes to English. Or any other subject for that matter.

I believe, that if one is unable to ask the question and then pursue that answer, then they are not expected to go far in life. Don't even bother asking them what 2 + 2 is. I may seem harsh, but after being surrounded by idiots all day every day... one acquires a cynical view of things--

LOL trust me
If youve taken Calculus 1, and then have to go take "Fundamentals of Math", which Ill add has College Algebra as a prerequsite, and the people in there have "FUN + SUN = SWIM" and youre supposed to find what letter corresponds to a set of numbers.. And they cant figure it out...
Even with hints.. =.= Thyre stupid. I sat there for 30 min with that answer, waiting to see if theyd figure it out, in the end they got a WRONG answer, and deemed it "unsolvable". =.=''

Nice... I have my canned answer from college. I do believe this to be true, even if it is from a paper I wrote many years ago.

Intelligence, in the realms of sentient beings, is defined as a combination of the following traits:
The ability to learn and retain information (in other words, build neural pathways)
The ability to take learned information and make inferences (cognitive capacity)
The ability to derive new information from inferences and reapply (creativity)

One must be careful to not confuse logic and analysis with intelligence. Logic and analysis is but one form of intelligence, with what is known as "global cognizance" acting as the other (also known as linear versus non-linear thinking).

Lol make sure youre talking abotu Inteligence as in sentient-type!
Cus there are the "8 intelligences" as well ^^ I understand they are learning types but srsly, O.o Like half my class was saying "there are 8 ways to be intelligent? ... OH... oh.. nvm.."
Lol :D
Picture, Word, Math/Logical FTW!!!!

Lordlymight

10-14-2008, 01:14 PM

I think there are too many debates, you need a moderator to limit the number of debates, and progress the current ones when they reach a stand still.

I’ll make a post for each one.

I would agree about having a moderator, but there are several hiccups in that. First, a true moderator would not be allowed to post his or her own opinions. Second, they would need to know and enforce the rules of a moderated debate (which would also mean that the debaters would have to know and at least attempt to follow the rules). Third they would have to limit certain comments. Which would reduce the number of posts. That would be a shame, in my opinion. I would like to see everyone post, even if they don’t know the rules of critical thinking or if their posts are inane. In either case, they inspire comment from others, and who knows, maybe they will learn something.

Also, it would be sad to limit the number of topics. The more topics, the more likely someone will find a subject that interests them. For those of us that have opinions on everything it can be a little arduous to pound through every post, but we are smart people, we can handle it… :D

Regarding People being Good or Evil

I agree with DF001 and Lordly, that these are concepts and relative.

I mostly agree with RikoRain, and many other philosophers, such as Locke, that we are blank slates, but I do not entirely agree, as I do not dismiss the genetic dispositions/nature side of the nature vs nurture debate. I do believe however that when it comes to “good or evil” nurture, plays the larger role, as I completely agree with ILiKePieLoRDoFKNiVeS , that circumstance, situation and therefore nurture has the greater influence on actions.

In reference to Locke, its important to remember that Locke was strongly against the idea that man was an “animal” and could therefore not have instinct (Locke and Kant are my favorite philosophers, quotes from either will instantly endear you in my eyes hehe). Unfortunately, being born in the age that he was, he didn’t have access to the science we have today. While his metaphysics stand strong, we find that a very few of his more biological ideals have been refuted.

The reason I bring this up is in reference to the nature versus nurture debate that currently rages among philosophers and psychologists today. Every year I read in the Philosophy of Science Journal another study that “proves” one side or the other. We just don’t know yet. That said, I agree that a great number of “tendencies” are built from environment. I also agree that while there are definite examples of those that regardless of environment have turned to the other side (or even switched sides later in life), we find the greatest number of extreme examples fit the environmental profile.

I also agree with Araiven Valen, that Lordlymight debates from a western point of view.

I say this for a different reason, although Araiven’s observation is also correct. What first tipped me off to this was when Lordly stated that most people are “Ambivalent”, with their main concern being themselves. This is not entirely true.

Most western people are “Ambivalent”, or more properly, using the proper self construal names, “independent”/”individualists”, however most Eastern people are “Interdependent”/collectivists.

Actually, and I apologize for misleading you on this point, I had no intention to imply that ambivalent meant individualistic. Ambivalent would be better described as a combination of selfish or temporal. In other words, the person is concerned with what is going on for them (and their direct social circle) at that moment. I chose ambivalent over selfish because selfish has a derogatory connotation and implies that one actively seeks self-gratification. Being ambivalent is more of a world-view as opposed to an activity. If you consider the Eastern concept of male versus female children, we can see that they share that ambivalent majority.

Interdependent/collectivists are more likely to put the group first. So they do not make decisions “based on what will happen to them”, but how it will affect the group.

And since the majority of the world’s population lies in Asia, the majority of people are collectivists, and do not put their needs before the needs of others.

[I’d like to note at this point that not all western people are independent and all eastern people interdependent, there are independent people in the east, and inter-dependent people in the west, it’s just the majority of westerners are independent, and the majority of easterners interdependent, if you are interested in knowing what you are, I can post a psychological survey and let you know based on your answers ;)]

Here I disagree. The average person in Asia is just as likely to put their own needs first, even if they do choose to do so for a collective reason. It’s the difference between predators and non-predators. A predator chooses to do what it needs to do to survive individually, while a non-predator chooses to do what it needs to do to survive with the herd. In the end though, when the predator attacks, the herd will gladly sacrifice one of its own to survive.

Also, the clashes between herds can be brutal, bloody and definitely not be benevolent for the species as a whole (though it could be argued that herd culling is important for the survival of a species). This too, is true of Asian societies. The indifference, and even hatred, between the different Asian cultures surely cannot be considered a collective society.

I think were we are getting hemmed up is the idea of familial groups.

In my original post, I mentioned that the self included the self’s immediate family, as the family is considered a distinct part of the self. In modern Western societies, the nuclear family is the norm. The family consists of the spousal house heads, their unmarried minority children, and their dog and that about covers it. In just about (though far from exhaustive) every other cultures, the familial group tends to include a vast extended family, and is very communal in nature. This familial group can be as large as clan holdings (to include villages, even small towns). While great lengths may be gone to to protect these familial units and insure their survival, they are seldom kind as a whole to outsiders.

In other words, they care about themselves, with a strong resistance to others, with little concern for the future of the world outside of their sphere as a whole.

Before we get lost, I would like to make the point that we are talking about majorities here. The whole point of the discussion is that there are exceptions to these rules and the exceptions are those that are truly good or truly evil. Never mistake being nice for being good. The guy with the candy probably isn’t thinking of the survival of the species.

To Be Continued...

Lordlymight

10-14-2008, 01:16 PM

Now on to Good and evil!

Lordly is on the right track when he related the word deviant to evil. But it is not as simple as that, as ILiKePie, and many others have pointed out. A deviant is merely a person who goes against or lives outside the “norms” of their society. A woman who wears white shoes after Labour Day may be labelled a “deviant” in our culture, but that fashion crime is hardly “evil”. There are people who believe income tax is unconstitutional and do not pay, their behaviour is “deviant” but it isn’t “evil”.

This is known as affirming the consequent. Here, we are saying that all deviants are evil, when in reality, is a statement that everyone who is evil is a deviant.

Evil is much more complex than that. Murder is evil, but what about if it is in self-defence, then many would argue that it is not evil. To get to the truth of what is really evil, we must first strip away cultural subtext and get to the barebones of how people interact with each other.
Since I mentioned murder, let’s start with that

Why is murder evil?

The concept of murder as an evil act is very involved, so I will take it on piece by piece below. First though, I would like to discuss your definition of murder. Murder, in the legal sense, is the unjustified killing of another human being. The key term there being unjustified. In moral accounts, murder is the needless killing of a human being. Again, the key term is needless.

The death of our own by our own hand is not necessarily evil. It could even be argued that it is inherently necessary. We could get into a dozen side-discussions about “culling,” population control, social aligning, and self-defense, but that is another topic entirely.

In the end, murder as it is defined is evil since it serves no other purpose than the whims of the individual committing the act.

One other thing. I would like to point out that an individual can be diabolically evil without ever once committing a crime. We cannot assume that all criminals are evil and all evil persons are criminal. Some evil persons turn their malignity on themselves, becoming self-loathing and self-destructive, while some will turn to such abuses as torturing animals or sexual deviation. Indeed, the most intelligent and devious evil persons are those that commit horrible atrocities legally and without consequence.

Common answer would be, because taking the life of another human being is wrong.

Why is taking the life of another human being wrong?

Answers may vary on this, such as life is sacred, my religion says it is, however then people will turn around and defend the death penalty, or killing in self-defence..

If we dig deep enough we will reach the real answer which is this..

Despite being Individualists or Collectivists, it is a fact that human beings are social/cultural animals. That does not mean that we are all chatty or like fine art, but that we survive best in a group. We are a group animal, social animals, cultural animals.

There are other animals that are social, and cultures can be found in other animals however it pales in comparison to us, and that is because we rely so heavily on it to survive that it became the evolutionary trait that made us the top of the food chain that we are today. If we pitted one man with nothing against a lion, the lion would win, if we pitted 100 men against the lion, the winner is man.

It is from this reliance on the group that we developed language, and society. It is the reason for our laws, and the root of the concepts of good and evil.

Here, we agree. Morality is based on need. It is one of the elements of sentience that we can question our own methods of survival, but in the end, all that we consider good is based on what is best for the species and what we consider evil is what we consider detrimental to the species.

Also, since the topic has been broached, I will say that while man is a social animal, that evolutionary trait breaks down as the group reaches larger size. A group of ten is much better suited to mutual survival than a group of one hundred. A group of one hundred is much better suited to survival than a group of one thousand. So on and so forth. I believe (personal opinion only) that social deviance is directly caused by over-population. It is the common cause and effect of physics law. The harder you push, the more you are pushed back. This is why I think that small towns tend to be more pleasant than large cities. I have little to base this on other than derivation and anecdotal experience, but it feels true in my gut.

If you have doubts on the importance of other people in your daily life, which some individualists may have, let me put them to rest before I move on. Consider the last thing you ate. Did you grow it yourself? Or was the ingredients for it grown on various farms, the farmers of which bought tools from a store, the tools made by someone else, designed by a different person, the food shipped on a truck, put together by someone else, using a recipe developed by someone else, packaged by someone else, brought to the store by someone else, the store which is run by someone else, where you or someone else bought the food, using money that you earned working for someone else, perhaps cooked on an oven, eaten on a plate with eating utensils at a table while sitting on a chair, all of which was sold, built and designed by someone else; eaten in your home, which was most likely built and designed by someone other than yourself. Mankind has developed and prospered thanks to the work of the group.

I would warn you here. While you are quite correct that on the vast, vast majority, people need others, it is not true of all. For one, there are people who use the services of others out of convenience, rather than necessity. Another is those people who are not only quite capable of a basic level of survival alone, but can do so in relative comfort. For the record, those extremely rare individuals would be considered deviants within most human cultures (though not all).

So in most simplistic terms, what is good is what benefits the group, and what is evil, hurts or endangers the group.

Why is murder evil?

Because someone who might have been a productive member of the group was taken away.

Why is self defence okay?

Because someone who might be a productive member of the group was threatened by someone who wished to take away a productive member of the group, therefore trying to do something anti-productive to the group; the possibly productive member who was in danger instead removed the anti-productive threat, which is more positive for the group then if it was the other way around. Therefore it is not “good” or ideal, but it is okay, and not “evil”.

This also explains why stealing and ****, judging by jail time, are not as “evil” as murder, those crimes, unless in large scale, do not endanger the group as much as losing a productive member does, but they do hurt the group and are therefore “bad”/ lesser "evils".

Are people good or evil?

No, there are no good people or evil people; there are just people who do good and evil deeds.

We may judge them as good or evil, but this is merely the Actor/observer bias at work.

One of the rare cases where I strongly disagree with you. If good and evil or defined by a relative standard and that standard is understood by a majority, then tendencies toward those actions in thought and deed make you evil or good. Not everyone has the same definition, but not everyone speaks with proper grammar or drives within the speed limit. The majority understands what is right and wrong, and the extremes of those dipoles are difficult to argue. Self-sacrifice for the right reasons, watching the world burn for the wrong ones. Good and evil. They exist, and so do the people who prefer those methods.

I would like to add a personal note here as well. Again, this is opinion based on derivation and therefore is not writ.

**** and torture are the most atrocious evils that can possibly be committed. Killing someone can be justified. In fact, it is justified everyday by perfectly reasonable, sometimes moral people (war, capital punishment, euthanasia, self-defense, law enforcement). But there is absolutely no justification for ****, ever. Torture is a commonly justified act, but to me it is garbage morality. There is nothing positive in torture, even if information that was gleaned was of monumental importance, the person conducting the torture could never be a “good” person. They may be very utilitarian, but never benevolent.

On the same note, I don’t see theft as inherently evil. I see theft as a gross example of ambivalence matched with either a need or a disregard for consequence. Not to say that evil people don’t steal, only that stealing, in and of itself, is not an evil act.

The AOB is basically the difference in which you judge others and yourself.

Ex:

Observer: You’re at school walking in the hall to your next class, and someone runs by and almost knocks you over. You think... How rude! That person is rude!

Actor: You’re at school and you get a call that your sibling/parent was in an accident, your absolutely frantic with worry, you rush down the hall to the exit so you can go to the hospital, The halls are crowded as everyone is heading to their next class, you bump into a few people in your rush.

As the observer, you automatically think the actions of the other person is due to some inner personality trait of that person, such as them being rude.

As the actor, you know that you were only rude because of the situation, and under different circumstances you wouldn’t do that.

It’s easier for us to say Hitler is evil then it is to say under certain circumstances any one could do what Hitler did. However experiments have shown, that under certain circumstances, any of us are capable of “evil”. Perfect examples of this are Milgram experiment and Stanford prison experiment.

Did these people do Evil things? Yes. Are they Evil people? No. Were they born evil? No. Were they put in to a situation that influenced them into doing “evil”, Yes. Did they think they were “Evil”? No.

We like to label people based on their actions, but we don’t want people to label us by our negative actions.

Good example of bias, but again we are affirming the consequent. We are assuming that all evil acts are committed by evil people. You must commit evil with intention of committing evil to be an evil person. You must commit good with the intention of being good to be a good person. There are good and evil people, and there are good and evil acts. The two concepts are intricately intertwined, and are mutually dependant, but they are separate concepts all the same.

We are also assuming that we are judging a specific individual with being good or evil. That isn’t really the case. The topic as I understood it was that there were good or evil persons, not that a specific person was good or evil. Make no mistake, there are historic examples of those that committed such gross atrocities that they could be defined as nothing else.

Lordlymight

10-14-2008, 01:17 PM

Outspark's business practices

Like all businesses, Outspark is in it for the money. However unlike many businesses they neglect customer service and satisfaction, and constantly put the customer’s experience 2nd to what is most profitable. Their main focus is gaining new customers, rather than retaining current customers, hoping that the game will hook the customers enough that they play long enough to start spending, and then hope the community will hook the current customers so that they will continue to spend even though they are dissatisfied with the game.

I'm never winning player of the month now. XD

Making your disdain for a company's poor business practices known, no matter how much you want or need the product, is admirable. I commend you on both your candor and willingness.

Fake. We all know it was aliens who built them

I`m sorry, I`m just feeling silly at the moment. I`ll reply to these wonderful topics when I`m able to, but at the moment I can`t...

Yeah, alien slaves…. Muwahahaha!

idk about the world only the part thats in the state of wisconsin
and wat about the summerians 1 of the 1st civilizations of the world
yea they had slaves but they only enslaved the encaptured ppl from war and ppl who had debts they didnt have enough money to pay but with both instances they were able to become free and they were treated with much more sencerity and respect than that of the slaves in america

Yes, indeed, the Sumerians used slave labor. So then I take it you are posing an antithesis of your original point then?

I’m having difficulty following your lead on where the slaves came from. Does that actually matter? What happened when a conquered people forced into slave labor reproduced. Wasn't that child then born into slavery?

You do realize that there were not only entire regions of the US that were slave free from the beginning, but that the Emancipation Proclamation was meant to free all American slaves. Talk about an instance where they were able to become free. And come on, sincerity and respect. While I don’t dare assign you a book to read, I will recommend you watch the movie Apocalypto. While a work of fiction, it captures what being a slave in South American culture prior to European involvement looked like. It was far from sincere and respectful (and was a conquered people-style slavery as well).

Before you reply, and I hope that you do, please take a few moments to allow the above to sink in. I think that you may have some very good opinions, they just need a bit of knowledge to back them up and a very small amount of eloquence to say them the way you want us to understand them.

LOL trust me
If youve taken Calculus 1, and then have to go take "Fundamentals of Math", which Ill add has College Algebra as a prerequsite, and the people in there have "FUN + SUN = SWIM" and youre supposed to find what letter corresponds to a set of numbers.. And they cant figure it out...
Even with hints.. =.= Thyre stupid. I sat there for 30 min with that answer, waiting to see if theyd figure it out, in the end they got a WRONG answer, and deemed it "unsolvable". =.=''

Lol make sure youre talking abotu Inteligence as in sentient-type!
Cus there are the "8 intelligences" as well ^^ I understand they are learning types but srsly, O.o Like half my class was saying "there are 8 ways to be intelligent? ... OH... oh.. nvm.."
Lol :D
Picture, Word, Math/Logical FTW!!!!

I was differentiating from animal intelligence, which is simply the ability to retain trained information (by our standards). Some creatures other than humans have shown rudimentary levels of sentient intelligence as well. But I will start to step into my own topic there, so I will leave it alone.

And for both you and Takimi. Make sure you don’t define stupid as talentless in a field. To be smart doesn’t require mastery of mathematics or English or philosophy or any other field of study. LdyMystra, for example, is extremely smart and one of the most well-read people I have ever known. She holds a bachelor’s degree in a field that requires an understanding of research and precision of thought. She actively seeks to increase her knowledge base. But don’t, for the love of all things good and kind, ever… ever… ask her to balance the checkbook.

LadyMystra

10-14-2008, 03:49 PM

Takimi

10-14-2008, 04:59 PM

Also, it would be sad to limit the number of topics. The more topics, the more likely someone will find a subject that interests them. For those of us that have opinions on everything it can be a little arduous to pound through every post, but we are smart people, we can handle it… :D

^^ Like me?

In reference to Locke, its important to remember that Locke was strongly against the idea that man was an “animal” and could therefore not have instinct (Locke and Kant are my favorite philosophers, quotes from either will instantly endear you in my eyes hehe). Unfortunately, being born in the age that he was, he didn’t have access to the science we have today. While his metaphysics stand strong, we find that a very few of his more biological ideals have been refuted.

The reason I bring this up is in reference to the nature versus nurture debate that currently rages among philosophers and psychologists today. Every year I read in the Philosophy of Science Journal another study that “proves” one side or the other. We just don’t know yet. That said, I agree that a great number of “tendencies” are built from environment. I also agree that while there are definite examples of those that regardless of environment have turned to the other side (or even switched sides later in life), we find the greatest number of extreme examples fit the environmental profile.

Hmm, here, I would like to interject that I believe myself that man IS animal, but as such, we are subject to base needs that can over-power reason and mental training. Such as sexual pleasure. At about 13/14 years of age, teenagers begin to develop hormones that create urges to think/ponder upon the idea. We may dream of romance, but it's the lust/need for procreation that surrounds the base desire.

Like animals we are so fond of placing below us in the chain of command, we too, are subject to desires/needs/instincts that are like theirs as well.

I think if I had personally known Locke, I would have bashed him across the head too many times--

Here I disagree. The average person in Asia is just as likely to put their own needs first, even if they do choose to do so for a collective reason. It’s the difference between predators and non-predators. A predator chooses to do what it needs to do to survive individually, while a non-predator chooses to do what it needs to do to survive with the herd. In the end though, when the predator attacks, the herd will gladly sacrifice one of its own to survive.

In this, I believe that the human being is inherently selfish. As well as a communal creature, we instinctively seek our own wants and needs. Have you ever been stuck in a situation and talked your way out of it? That was a selfish desire to avoid responsibility and therefore gratifying your own wants. You want no punishment, so therefore, use any possibility to get out of it.

Making your disdain for a company's poor business practices known, no matter how much you want or need the product, is admirable. I commend you on both your candor and willingness.

Here too, I agree. Outspark is trying to reel in as many new players as possible, and blatantly ignoring the needs of the older community. Guess what? I won't be player of the month either. But at least I'm not afraid to speak my mind. I believe thier business practices are faulty.

I was in Elderine sometime last week; there were a few GM's in Elderine at the time, and I was on shout "talking" to them (sort of, as they had like a bazillion shouts going on, but at least they answered me). Now, I brought up the issue that when two characters use the marriage system, and one character is deleted, the other character still retains the buff, skill and pet. I asked them why this happened and my reply was that they hadn't anticipated it.

Is it not their job to think about these things? To TEST these things? If they create a service or any sort of active part of the game, it is their JOB (the people who do these anyways, I'm aware the GM's don't do that) to TEST and THINK and ANTICIAPTE ALL possibilities. How can you create something like a marriage service and not wonder what would happen if one character was deleted?

There was a post on forums a while back when the marriage system was introduced; I can't remember which staff member/volunteer posted it, but they said that the only way to divorce was to delete the character as the divorce feature is not currently implemented. See the contradiction? They did not test all possibilities, and yet they made claims not fully proven. That's just one of my issues.

Before you reply, and I hope that you do, please take a few moments to allow the above to sink in. I think that you may have some very good opinions, they just need a bit of knowledge to back them up and a very small amount of eloquence to say them the way you want us to understand them.

In my opinion, well put. Some people could stand to learn a little... eloquence as you put it.

And for both you and Takimi. Make sure you don’t define stupid as talentless in a field. To be smart doesn’t require mastery of mathematics or English or philosophy or any other field of study. LdyMystra, for example, is extremely smart and one of the most well-read people I have ever known. She holds a bachelor’s degree in a field that requires an understanding of research and precision of thought. She actively seeks to increase her knowledge base. But don’t, for the love of all things good and kind, ever… ever… ask her to balance the checkbook.

Don't worry, I'm just as equally useless in math. Trust me. I barely scraped out of Trig with a D. I suppose I'll take it again in the summer (no way in hell am I taking it in school again-- that's like kicking the animal while it's down), online of course :D...

And I guess I mislead you on that. The people I was using for an example show no cognitive ability to think in any other class. By all means, if you are better in math than english, go right ahead. I'm not saying you are NOT intelligent, just English-deficient. If they are in English and they do not even TRY, I do not think much of them in the first place and I think less when the first thing out of their mouth is, "Taki, what is the definition of good/evil/fear?" :eek:

Ever heard of a dictionary...? It's useful, that book is. Try using it sometime. That's why there are 20-30 in this classroom.

RikoRain

10-15-2008, 08:06 AM

LdyMystra, for example, is extremely smart and one of the most well-read people I have ever known. She holds a bachelor’s degree in a field that requires an understanding of research and precision of thought. She actively seeks to increase her knowledge base. But don’t, for the love of all things good and kind, ever… ever… ask her to balance the checkbook.

LAWL
Lol I cant balance a checkbook either. I do the online checking.
-.- I swear my mom cant. She has such a hard time wrapping aorund that ti says what we CURRENTLY HAVE, what you CURRENTLY SPENT, and what you will have AFTER those are added.
Cus Shell ask me to go to the store, get some stuff. "Make sure I have money then!"
1 week later I get yelled at for overcharging. =.= is it really that hard? I mean its just math.. xD

Instead, give me online checking and I will still bounce the account. ;)
Omg lol... xD

And Lordly.. ***FFFFFF are you like a History lover/type person? OMG how do you remember this stuff?! D: I mean.. holy shiv dude xD
"Too long didnt read" I tried to read it D: I did, but I wa slike "hes just.. breaking down her post.. D: OH TEH NOES" xD Lets see if I can make some sort of reasonable reply..
Lets see.. Ill go by what I remember being said first. No quotes tho, sorry, not enough time to organize.

"Stupidity" I wasnt mistaking as.. lack of ability did you say?
Thats not the way I use stupidity. Stupidity, in my opinion, is either the state of being so dang lazy you cant do something simple or use common sense (COMMON SENSE!! The one thing that takes less than the smallest amount of energy to do/think/act out), or just simply refusing to learn things / remember knowledge/ etc.
Basically: A person so lazy they do not want ot learn, and have no desire to learn, not even the things they like.

But youll find me calling people stupid in game alot. Its better than cursin at em and getting jailed if they report.

As for the Abivaliant thing.. Everyone.. EVERYONE thinks for themselves. When you boil it down, it sall about you you you. What will benefit you? What will make YOU feel better? What will come back and advance YOU further?

Take helping people for example. Most people get a good happy feeling after theyve helped someone. For some its habit/instinctual, yes, but most people feel good about helping that person. Therefore: You have done something for yourself.

Another example would be a person who writes a 100k check to a donation service with their name on it and everything. They are getting credit for it. They will be thanked, loved, and appreciated for it. Therefore: helping themselves. Dont tell me Im wrong. This is from my Psychology class, and while I cant say it very well, she sure did, and if you know what Im talking about, you know what I mean.

Even helping your friends! Many people think "youre my friend, sure Ill help you, you dont have to thank me or give me anything". But WHY do you help them? Really, you are getting something out of it. Friendship, for one, which everyone loves, even the grumpiest man will feel so sad when the peopel he grumbles at leave. Its a type of friendship. You help your friend becaus emaking that friend happy, will inevitably make you happy. Loaning your friend 50$ means that some day, should you need 50$, they will be more than happy to do the same for you. Its a failsafe. It dates back to our natural instincts that us, one, alone, are not nearly as likely to survive as TWO working together. You can see this in lion prides where two brothers will work together to take down the current Prides King. Because together they stand more of a chance than alone.

In the end you get something out of it, which is the whole reason you do it. And doing things for yourself can be labeled selfish. Everyone is selfish. Its just.. when everyones selfish, no one is. Get it? It becomes the NORM. Therefore the way we use selfish now is for those really apparent acts where its like "Wow, you dont care about others, only yourself" even tho every one does that.

Even Lordly. xD You could say hes selfish in a way because although he replies to this thread and gives us all such good information and we all enjoy what he has to say.. it makes him feel good doing it (otherwise why else would he do it?) He ENJOYS it. Therefore its something for himself. Even I do it. Why do I reply here? Because i like hearing what other peopel say on th4ese subjects, and it ssomething I enjoy. Therefore I do this for me, in the end, and therefore I too am selfish.

If youre gonna relate selfishness to doing something for yourself, then it widens xD

I didnt mean to offend anyone xD And Lordly, I used you as an example there because I figured youre the one least likely to take offense here, and ot understand what I mean O.o Srry? xD

I agree with Takimi -just looked down and read some more-
In this, I believe that the human being is inherently selfish. As well as a communal creature, we instinctively seek our own wants and needs.
Lol she basically sums up what I typed -.- wish Id read it before I typed it all out.

---btw omg guys >< I liek go to class, get out, and theres 10 zilliion long posts xD And then the days I odnt have class no one posts xDDD Ahhh I have bad luck xD----

lenore_lurks

10-15-2008, 08:46 AM

Technically, we are actually animals.

I really want to reply on the stupidity topic... but must do school work first. One could say I'm incredibly stupid for leaving this til the last minute (as per usual) but hey, if I can still whip out distinctions and high distinctions, I can't be that dumb now can I? :D

*will reply properly later*

RikoRain

10-15-2008, 12:35 PM

[QUOTE=lenore_lurks;1248496]Technically, we are actually animals.QUOTE]

Lol too true.

People seem to forget that we do have those innate instincts.

Look at a little kid. When they are scared, what do they do? They either a) crawl to a safe spot and cower, or b) bawl and whine for mommy or daddy to come protect them. The crying is an alarm, "Im here! Im being hurt! I might be hurt! Save me!", whether its full out bawling and yelling, or just weeping. It sends out that signal "Im being hurt, Im hurt, help me". Hence why even the brattiest kid who noone hates, can start crying when hes hurt, and lo n behold, people will still come help him.

Thats also why under pressure, attack, or genuine fear, some people want to curl into balls. Because in the back of our brain it says: circles have the smallest surface area, that mens the least amount of part of us that can get hurt, so curl into a ball! It also says that when we are smaller, we present less of a threat. A circle is as small as we humans can get, so.. yeah

Nature vs Nurture..
Nurture comes from natural instincts..

Takimi

10-15-2008, 04:10 PM

Lol she basically sums up what I typed -.- wish Id read it before I typed it all out.

:Dlol wut ten

hotsnowman

10-15-2008, 09:38 PM

Making your disdain for a company's poor business practices known, no matter how much you want or need the product, is admirable. I commend you on both your candor and willingness.

Yeah, alien slaves…. Muwahahaha!

Yes, indeed, the Sumerians used slave labor. So then I take it you are posing an antithesis of your original point then?

I’m having difficulty following your lead on where the slaves came from. Does that actually matter? What happened when a conquered people forced into slave labor reproduced. Wasn't that child then born into slavery?

You do realize that there were not only entire regions of the US that were slave free from the beginning, but that the Emancipation Proclamation was meant to free all American slaves. Talk about an instance where they were able to become free. And come on, sincerity and respect. While I don’t dare assign you a book to read, I will recommend you watch the movie Apocalypto. While a work of fiction, it captures what being a slave in South American culture prior to European involvement looked like. It was far from sincere and respectful (and was a conquered people-style slavery as well).

Before you reply, and I hope that you do, please take a few moments to allow the above to sink in. I think that you may have some very good opinions, they just need a bit of knowledge to back them up and a very small amount of eloquence to say them the way you want us to understand them.

I was differentiating from animal intelligence, which is simply the ability to retain trained information (by our standards). Some creatures other than humans have shown rudimentary levels of sentient intelligence as well. But I will start to step into my own topic there, so I will leave it alone.

And for both you and Takimi. Make sure you don’t define stupid as talentless in a field. To be smart doesn’t require mastery of mathematics or English or philosophy or any other field of study. LdyMystra, for example, is extremely smart and one of the most well-read people I have ever known. She holds a bachelor’s degree in a field that requires an understanding of research and precision of thought. She actively seeks to increase her knowledge base. But don’t, for the love of all things good and kind, ever… ever… ask her to balance the checkbook.

ummmmmmm im not even gonna lie to u i didnt feel like reading wat u just said

ShonenHero

10-15-2008, 10:55 PM

ummmmmmm im not even gonna lie to u i didnt feel like reading wat u just said

Well neither did I, yet, and i don`t post it. Post when you feel like reading or just pass to other topic where you have to read less~

Even Lordly. xD You could say hes selfish in a way because although he replies to this thread and gives us all such good information and we all enjoy what he has to say.. it makes him feel good doing it (otherwise why else would he do it?) He ENJOYS it. Therefore its something for himself. Even I do it. Why do I reply here? Because i like hearing what other peopel say on th4ese subjects, and it ssomething I enjoy. Therefore I do this for me, in the end, and therefore I too am selfish.

This is too true

Lordly is SO selfish (Lawl)

Nah, really now. Why do we post in the forums? Because we want other people reading what we write, nobody can deny that, we want to provoke things in everyone reading what we post. In Lordly`s case, reflexion, insight, understanding, knowledge. In my case, the lulz. And, as Riko said, we`re only referring to Lordly because he has it bigger (The posts, I mean *Drums*) but again, Riko`s showing us that he understands this, and Takimi posting a ":D" upon being complimented. But in every different case, the action besides everything we do, is four ourselves, and ourselves only. And if you deny this, is because you want to look good to others, thus, proving my point

There`s no escape

We could go further than that and invite my friend Sigmund Freud to the thread, who had some strong views about this (And transmitted those views to 99% of the psychologists of our time) sustaining that EVERY action a person takes is directed to sexually attracting the opposite sex, to simplify his work (See the lulz again? Gosh, so selfish, it was right...). Psychology`s one of my favourite fields of study, I regret having let time pass without replying to the intelligence question, because most things have already been said, and I lost my turn *Sigh* Anyway, if we were to cite Freud and talk about his stuff, the thing would turn to rated +18, so we may as well avoid the dude

Going back to selfishness, the fact that we`re all innately selfish, doesn`t mean one can let his instincts loose and be as selfish as he wants becase "C`mon, we`re all selfish", controlling ourselves is part of the world with rules and regulations we need to live in an organized and "peaceful" world, concept already explained, again, by Lordly, to our anarchist guest that never came back. This way, one CAN and WILL be labeled as "Selfish" if his selfish acts are unmasked (Or are just, too selfish) Again, you can`t deny this, because if you do, you`re also denying what Lordly said, and I`d like to see you against him!

There`s NO escape

And now that we`re done with that subject, we can pass onto the ones that are really important:

Yeah, alien slaves…. Muwahahaha!

Wanna start with Star Wars?

Takimi

10-15-2008, 11:04 PM

We could go further than that and invite my friend Sigmund Freud to the thread, who had some strong views about this (And transmitted those views to 99% of the psychologists of our time) sustaining that EVERY action a person takes is directed to sexually attracting the opposite sex, to simplify his work (See the lulz again? Gosh, so selfish, it was right...). Psychology`s one of my favourite fields of study, I regret having let time pass without replying to the intelligence question, because most things have already been said, and I lost my turn *Sigh* Anyway, if we were to cite Freud and talk about his stuff, the thing would turn to rated +18, so we may as well avoid the dude

Yes, oh yes, Kurama-kun. I posted :D because I want you and Lordly SO much... I want you both to... oh wait... PG... PG... ^^

/sarcasm

ShonenHero

10-15-2008, 11:13 PM

Yes, oh yes, Kurama-kun. I posted :D because I want you and Lordly SO much... I want you both to... oh wait... PG... PG... ^^

I know that, cutie, why do you think I even posted it? ;)

Takimi

10-15-2008, 11:29 PM

Mhmmmmm...

Lordlymight

10-15-2008, 11:50 PM

Question Posed:

Assuming that human beings are sentient, do you believe there are other sentient creatures, on Earth or awash in space?

Please give us as much and as many justifications for your premises as you can.

ShonenHero

10-16-2008, 12:00 AM

I KNEW I shouldn`t have mentioned Star Wars to this man...

(I`ll comment on that later!)

Lordlymight

10-16-2008, 12:33 AM

Yes, oh yes, Kurama-kun. I posted :D because I want you and Lordly SO much... I want you both to... oh wait... PG... PG... ^^

/sarcasm

WHAT!?!? At the same time... Well I'm afraid it would end up just me, since Neo would feel a bit "under-powered" for any activity you had in mind...

Sorry buddy, genetics :D

Well neither did I, yet, and i don`t post it. Post when you feel like reading or just pass to other topic where you have to read less~

Actually his response was valid and contained a great deal of information. It was the proverbial tipping of the king. He has made it clear that he has nothing of value to add, nor does he intend to refute counter-arguments. That said, as is wont with youth, he could not simply say, "Hey, you are right, I hadn't seen it that way before. Thanks for the insight." So he chose a way that he felt would save him enough face to slink out of the thread unnoticed.

It was quite well done, from that point of view...

This is too true

Lordly is SO selfish (Lawl)

While I have very strong feelings about right and wrong, I never claimed either as a motivator. One of the benefits of being relatively intelligent is that you can often analyze your own hubrises and come to terms with them. While I lean heavily to the side of good (in my opinion, which I can justify with examples and explanation), my end motivation is the self. For example, upon returning from overseas, I bought a brand new hot off the line, fully-tuned Yamaha YZF-R1 motorcycle. I was one of the first people in Las Vegas to own the new tucked tailpipe R1. I paid $12,000 cash money in a plain brown envelope for it. I dubbed it my "war trophy" and have owned it ever since.

I can say with absolute certainty, that I did not buy that bike to get back and forth to work. I did not buy it to assist me earning a living. I did not buy it so that I could wander about town without anyone noticing me.

I bought it as an ***-kicking, balls to the wall, loud, obnoxious, "HEY-EVERYBODY-LOOK-AT-ME-AREN'T-I-COOL" ludicrously fast, and remarkably dangerous chick magnet.

Now if you think I did that for the betterment of mankind, I am hurt and ashamed to burst the dream.

I spent more on that motorcycle than a lot of hard-working people make in a year. I could easily have used that money to finance social programs to help others.

My point is, those that have earned the title of good, have done so by going to the extremes of good. That does not mean they are not allowed to have ambivalent thoughts, simply that at the end of the day, the total sum was to the benefit for humankind as opposed to the benefit of self. If that is consistently the case, then you are a good person.

Nah, really now. Why do we post in the forums? Because we want other people reading what we write, nobody can deny that, we want to provoke things in everyone reading what we post. In Lordly`s case, reflexion, insight, understanding, knowledge. In my case, the lulz. And, as Riko said, we`re only referring to Lordly because he has it bigger (The posts, I mean *Drums*) but again, Riko`s showing us that he understands this, and Takimi posting a ":D" upon being complimented. But in every different case, the action besides everything we do, is four ourselves, and ourselves only. And if you deny this, is because you want to look good to others, thus, proving my point

Make no mistake, I love posting here. I love posting to any thread where one of my five "internet forum" talents can come into play. I hunt for them.
1. Is there an argument in progress that I agree strongly with one side or the other (Here I include supporting evidence for the side I prefer)
2. Is there an argument in progress that is either spiraling out of control, or hijacked by a rogue agent. (In which case I will provide support for either the OP if it was a good thread, or the hijacker if the thread was garbage and he is telling them so)
3. Opinion-conversation (I post my opinion using the rules of such to make it as direct, encompassing, and poignant as possible)
4. A fine argument is slowly becoming sour. (I attempt to inject a dose of diplomacy in the hopes the thread will be saved
5. Has an opportunity for some good (as Neo put it) lulz been presented (in which case I split your sides with my witty retort or outlandish artwork)

If I initiate a thread or in someway become intimately affiliated with a thread, the story is different because I have taken some ownership of the thread. Then, and please allow me to quote a very sagacious fellow "In Lordly`s case, reflexion, insight, understanding, knowledge." It becomes my intent to take on a type of leadership role so that the thread goes down a path as I see it should (a very selfish notion in and of itself). If it is not my thread alone, then I am very open to the wishes of the OP.

Also, and ldymystra can back me up here, I enjoy "exercising my mind" which means I have a tendency to exercise my tongue. The keyboard is my tongue when I speak to da inarnuttz.

Basically, I like to hear myself talk. Its an old habit that often plagues People with Philosophy degrees.

There`s no escape

We could go further than that and invite my friend Sigmund Freud to the thread, who had some strong views about this (And transmitted those views to 99% of the psychologists of our time) sustaining that EVERY action a person takes is directed to sexually attracting the opposite sex, to simplify his work (See the lulz again? Gosh, so selfish, it was right...). Psychology`s one of my favourite fields of study, I regret having let time pass without replying to the intelligence question, because most things have already been said, and I lost my turn *Sigh* Anyway, if we were to cite Freud and talk about his stuff, the thing would turn to rated +18, so we may as well avoid the dude

Going back to selfishness, the fact that we`re all innately selfish, doesn`t mean one can let his instincts loose and be as selfish as he wants becase "C`mon, we`re all selfish", controlling ourselves is part of the world with rules and regulations we need to live in an organized and "peaceful" world, concept already explained, again, by Lordly, to our anarchist guest that never came back. This way, one CAN and WILL be labeled as "Selfish" if his selfish acts are unmasked (Or are just, too selfish) Again, you can`t deny this, because if you do, you`re also denying what Lordly said, and I`d like to see you against him!

There`s NO escape

And now that we`re done with that subject, we can pass onto the ones that are really important:

Wanna start with Star Wars?

No

ShonenHero

10-16-2008, 12:41 AM

WHAT!?!? At the same time... Well I'm afraid it would end up just me, since Neo would feel a bit "under-powered" for any activity you had in mind...

Sorry buddy, genetics

Purrr-leeease, you`re talking to a geniune latin-lover here

No

No to ALL that or just to Star Wars?

Takimi

10-16-2008, 12:51 AM

Purrr-leeease, you`re talking to a geniune latin-lover here

Well... Not to be rude or anything, but when I come to my thread, I absolutely go goo-goo gaa-gaa when lordly posts because it's filled with opinion, logic and above all.... SOMEONE WITH A BRAIN!!!!

Lordly *ahem* will you allow me to have sex with your brain?

jkjkjkjkjkjkjk--

If I initiate a thread or in someway become intimately affiliated with a thread, the story is different because I have taken some ownership of the thread. *cough* MY THREAD!!! :D

Lordlymight

10-16-2008, 12:53 AM

Purrr-leeease, you`re talking to a geniune latin-lover here

Essay pleez, yo be talkin' to da ho-slappin' P.I.M.P

Takimi

10-16-2008, 12:58 AM

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Lordly, give me your msn now. If you don't have one, go get one.

NOW--

Edit: I must apologize to Kurama-kun. Yes, you do have a brain. It's just not as Godly as Lordly's

lostangelrequiem

10-16-2008, 12:59 AM

WHAT!?!? At the same time... Well I'm afraid it would end up just me, since Neo would feel a bit "under-powered" for any activity you had in mind...

Sorry buddy, genetics

Wahaha, you can only wish genetics were on your side ;3 Why do you think girls swoon over those latino heartthrobs so much, hmmmmm? >3

Oh, and Taki are you suggesting that Neo-kun has no brain? D= How dare you u.u He happens to have a very sexy brain, thank you very much.
EDIT: You posted while I was posting =o Good thing too, otherwise I would have had to slap you with the proverbial glove for insulting my man >O
[/offtopic?] xDD

Assuming that human beings are sentient, do you believe there are other sentient creatures, on Earth or awash in space?

As far as this goes, I say yes to both.
On Earth? Who knows how many other sentient beings there are?
I mean, for starters there could be creatures that are too small to see, or that have evolved far enough that they can conceal themselves from us completely. Even the animals we can already see could be intelligent and, by our standards, sentient, but we are incapable of understanding their language and thus believe them to be otherwise. =3

And well, aliens? Of course they exist, have you never heard of Roswell? xP
(No seriously, they do. Everybody's just in denial. But I'm shutting my mouth now before I come across as a crazy-conspiracy-theorist u.u)

Lordlymight

10-16-2008, 01:37 AM

you can only wish genetics were on your side ;3 Why do you think girls swoon over those Latino heartthrobs so much, hmmmmm? >3

Oh, and Taki are you suggesting that Neo-kun has no brain? D= How dare you u.u He happens to have a very sexy brain, thank you very much.
EDIT: You posted while I was posting =o Good thing too, otherwise I would have had to slap you with the proverbial glove for insulting my man >O
[/off topic?] xDD

Same reason I think midgets are funny. Its personal preference. Though I had alwasy assumed it required skill, lots of it, and a Latin island for which t take you away from all this...

So good luck with all that... I'm sure will satisfy you umm enough

Lordlymight

10-16-2008, 02:51 AM

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Lordly, give me your msn now. If you don't have one, go get one.

NOW-

normally, I would rant and deny such behavior but in the interest of all things nifty... send me a PM. The Neo/Lordly game of troubleshooting wasn't going well

firedale2002

10-16-2008, 12:39 PM

Concerning the most recent question about sentience on earth and away.

While I am not quite as eloquent or literate as some people on this forum and abroad, I still wish to voice my viewpoint. Also, I do understand that people not fluent in English may read my post and get confused, most likely because of the ‘bee’ and ‘B’ example later on, and others; for this I apologize, but I’ll do my best to keep things somewhat understandable.

If we take the basis of human as sentient, instead of something lower (Such as the ability to think, etc), then it makes the idea less profound.

Otherwise, if we simply base it on thought, then most definitely there is sentience on this planet other than humans.

So I'm going to put my thoughts on sentience first before I continue with my thoughts on the topic at hand.

I view sentience as the ability to improve oneself or mentally/physically adapt without evolutionary aid, think, reason, make choices, feel emotion, and learn beyond simple instinct. While these ideas are very basic in their meaning and use, together they tend to create a more 'thoughtful' entity. And yes, I know, some people out there will say "Vulcans in Star Trek were sentient, but they didn't feel emotion." That is not true, while they did repress or avoid showing their emotion, they did still feel emotion.

And yes, I know instinct, by definition, can be seen as something that has been “learned” and passed on through genetics. However, I feel that once instincts are simply passed and no longer learned or improved upon, they are no longer considered learning, but instead simply ‘knowing.’

EDIT: By 'without evolutionary aid', I mean the ability to improve or adapt in one's personal lifetime, not the adaptation or improvement of the species as a whole through evolutionary means (normally over several lifetimes).

That’s the end of my thoughts on sentience, the term.

First I will conduct my thoughts on sentience on earth, other than the Human element. I feel that there is sentience on other than Humans. There are many more than can be named in a single post (or possibly a few hundred), but I will name just a few that I feel most people can identify and understand.

Before I go into the other sentient beings on earth and beyond, I want to explain how Humans fit into the sentience definition as I see it.

Humans have the ability to learn new skills, abilities, and improve upon those skills and abilities they already know and learn later in life. Humans can also adapt to changes in environment, both socially and naturally, even if only by realizing that wearing clothes makes one warmer and less embarrassed around others. In a few billion years, perhaps humans will be born with clothing (evolution) but at this point, it’s still our own personal ability to choose. Adaptation is not always personal, but can be learning how to use tools outside of oneself in order to better oneself.

Humans can reason, decide what is right and wrong (even if that choice in itself is incorrect) for themselves. This is why we can have debates, arguments, decisions that affect us and our future moments.

Humans make choices and weigh our decisions to help in making those choices (as stated above, heh, decisions are choices) that affect things outside of that choice. “Do I want a new computer or do I want to upgrade the one I have?” Either choice gets a better computer, but the choice affects monetary means; sometimes a new computer costs more than upgrading one currently, and this means less money to spend forevermore in life. If you spend 3 dollars today instead of 2, that’s 1 dollar that will always be lost. Anyway, I’m going off topic, back to it.

Humans can love, hate, be mad, be sad, be worried, be afraid, etc. These emotions are the basis of how we view the world outside of our bodies and sometimes even within, and affect what we do. Being afraid of pain keeps most people from touching a hot stove-top once you realize that a hot stove-top causes pain to most people. Being mad allows people to show aggression, heroism, betrayal, improvement. (Mad doesn’t just cause ‘bad’ things, and please, don’t start on the ‘good/bad’ idea, I’m using the generalized term.) Worry goes hand in hand with love and hate. We tend to only worry about the things that mean something to us, even if only a little.

And lastly, Humans learn beyond what our instinct imposes. And while many people can argue that our learning is part of our instinct, we, on average, do not learn the same thing at the same time in the same way. Instinct is shown in repetitiveness or a repetitive display. And yes, learning takes repetitive acts, but in itself does not cause automatic repetitive acts. I write “bee is spelled bee,” over and over, and I learn how to spell bee; I may spell bee the same way for the rest of my life, but I don’t have to, once I determine what ‘bee’ is, means, and stands for; I could just as easily write it ‘B’ and many people will know what it means, because they, too, understand the meaning behind it if it is used in the proper context. “A B flew through my window today.”

Instinct is “I need to eat to survive.” Learning is “How best can I eat today?” Those are just tiny examples of what I’m trying to imply.

And now, on to a few examples of sentience on earth.

I’ll state as simply as I can how each of the following displays the ability to improve oneself or mentally/physically adapt without evolutionary aid, think, reason, make choices, feel emotion, and learn beyond simple instinct, sometimes even going so far as to go against instinct. I will not attempt to show EVERY reason that each one follows, just a few examples of how I feel as such. And yes, most of these are my own personal opinions, but so is the question at hand, since the answer as a whole is unknown.

House Cat:
Cats have the ability to improve and assert themselves through forcing change in their environment. Cats will avoid a litter box if the litter box isn’t clean enough, and as such will make a mess elsewhere in the home. If that doesn’t force you to change the litter box, then cats will usually make messes in much more visible areas. The cat reasons that when it makes a mess somewhere, you clean out the litter-box (Cause and effect). Cats play (yes, mostly by instinct) but at the same time, other cats will simply lie around and look at you funny if you dangle a string in front of them. This actually shows the idea of going against instinct (which in itself is a choice). A cat will run away from home if able, if the cat feels it isn’t safe or acceptable (this is an improvement and adaptation, an unhappy cat becomes a happy cat). Cats are known to cuddle when their owner needs to cuddle, they show love and compassion. Cats can be trained to do tricks that a cat normally would not do if left alone or in the wild, this shows the ability to learn.

House Dog:
The domesticated dog follows mostly along the same line as cats. Dogs learn both tricks and trials. If you don’t let your dog out to go potty when he begs at the door, he teaches you a lesson with a bigger mess than a cat (usually). Dogs reason and choose (especially during learning tricks “If I do this right, I get a treat!” There’s also “I got a spanking last time I made a mess, maybe I should ask to go out this time sooner.”) Dogs show compassion and love, almost depthless, with their master as long as the master gives the dog some type of respect and understanding. It goes beyond that, as some people simply abuse their pet, and the dog does nothing. This is usually caused by an upbringing with simple abuse, and the dog has learned that abuse is normal, and as such nothing can be done about it, so live with it. This is normally understood as ‘the dog is too stupid to do anything else.’ If this was the case, then a dog would never turn on its master, but many do, after one final ‘beating’ etc. This point shows adaptation to an unwanted condition.

Dolphins:
Dolphins show many of the same responses as humans to conditions regarding the same aspects. Dolphins form in groups, keep mates for life, sometimes cheat, sometimes choose to leave and find other groups, etc. Dolphins can be trained, thus learn. (Sorry, heh, I’ve about wrote out all of my nice thoughts for everything, since the basis of most of the ideas of sentience are exactly the same).

That’s just a few of the sentient species on earth, I feel. There are many more, and most likely many more that humans don’t even know about (as stated by a previous poster)

As a contrast, I want to point out spiders.
Spiders are working on being sentient. They learn and adapt to environment; they learn where to place their webs to catch more creatures. It is borderline instinct, but how they choose to use it is adaptive, as most back yards are not the same. I’m not sure about emotions, I don’t speak spider, and have never seen a spider love triangle, personally. Spiders can reason. If their web is constantly knocked down by a large creature, they will move it and not return to that point. Sometimes this takes a while to learn, but most will eventually understand it and choose to move elsewhere.

As far as beyond earth goes.

With the diversity of life on earth: sentient; almost sentient; and not quite sentient, I feel that being just one planet out of countless others, it would be very close minded to imagine that earth is the only planet with sentient life. While this does go with the basis of ‘it must be true because we don’t really know,’ it’s not what I’m going for. I’m going more for the ‘because we don’t know, it probably isn’t false, but not fair to make an absolute decision’ idea.

My opinion? It’d be awful lonely in the universe if earth was it. A lot of space to play games but no one to play with, so to speak. I feel there is sentient life outside of earth, even if I have no viable personal proof of it.

RikoRain

10-16-2008, 05:16 PM

Im not gonna bother reading through the posts after seeing something about latino-lover.
Nothing racial, but I just wanna read the debate part.

Kurama-kun? Takimi you just freaked me out. I knwo youre talking to Shonen cus Ive seen some of his.. uh posts, and I can so tell hes a YYH/Kurama lover but thats like.. the name almost everyone who knows me calls me by xD My aim is Kurama3333 and it slike.. god. 10 years old O.O
xD FREAKY~ Firsdt other person ive known/met with tha tin common

Im not gona bother correcting my typoes

And I really dont like the "sentient beings" question Lordly just asked D: BLEH

Knowing our solar system, and whats next.. galaxy? I uno i didnt pay attention to those terms way back in 4th grade >.> Universe galaxy.. same thing whatever. Whatevers bigger than that I don thave the brain power right now to think of it. But seeing as how there is 1 planet in our solar system with US, a "sentient" race.

Its logical to think that every other solar system out there has at least 1 sentient race eon at least 1 of the planets. If not sentient, then close to it, or some valuable life.

Is LOGIC.

Besides, I dont see us taking people into other solar systems. Who is to say that they can too? What if theyre around our advances in technology or lower? So you dont know. :P

And even if they were advanced enough to explore other solar systems n stuff, whos to say they would actively interfere in ours? Mebbe they want to let life grow as it will and when we meet on even terms then fine, then we meet.

:P Im braindead. I put my alt in a new guild and.. not so well. Sorry
(btw, what do yall think of my sig? I added some more to it. Dont just post with this! debate, and then maybe >.> sidecomment my sig, woudl be nice, I worked hard on it)

Takimi

10-16-2008, 05:33 PM

Kurama-kun? Takimi you just freaked me out. I know you're talking to Shonen because I've seen some of his.. uh posts, and I can so tell hes a YYH/Kurama lover but that's like.. the name almost everyone who knows me calls me by... xD My AIM is Kurama3333 and it's like.. god. 10 years old O.O
xD FREAKY~ First other person I've known/met with that in common

Don't worry, I corrected your typo's for you.

And yes, YYH FTWWWW!!!

I personally LOVE Kurama/Youko and Hiei. They're just plain awesomesauce.

And I call him Kurama-kun becaue his avvie looks like him (not to mention he's as gentlemanly as him)

^^

UzumakiW

10-16-2008, 05:39 PM

I personally LOVE Kurama/Youko and Hiei. They're just plain awesomesauce.

http://i37.tinypic.com/x6lleb.jpg

^My backpack XP

RikoRain

10-16-2008, 06:38 PM

http://i37.tinypic.com/x6lleb.jpg

^My backpack XP

Lol I have the chibi pins in my bookbag.
:3
I also got a sesshomaru patch I sewed on, and a dragon patch, and.. lets see.. i think .. neji and kakashi fro mnarute? I wanted a kurama nad hiei patch but they were all out D:<

Takimi

10-16-2008, 07:03 PM

...omg...

Give me that hiei nao!!!

lenore_lurks

10-16-2008, 07:33 PM

I've seen a UFO. No I'm not crazy.

UGH I want to add more but this thread is hurting my brain. Everyone writes so much, if this were an actual debate each person's comment would go on for 1/2 - 1 hour, when it shouldn't be more than 5-10 minutes. I can't reply because I don't have the time to pick everything apart and it's WALL OF TEXT. D:

ShonenHero

10-16-2008, 07:41 PM

And I call him Kurama-kun becaue his avvie looks like him (not to mention he's as gentlemanly as him)

^^

Consider your previous perpetration, and I`m talking about your most certainly disrespectful comment about my grey matter, fixed *Pulls out rose* Though you`ll have to work harder to be able to hold one of these beauties again...

My backpack XP

Ohhh, backpack talk! Lemme go get mine!

Let`s see, who`s here on my pins... Gackt of course <3, Koda Kumi, Seiya, Yondaime, Tsunade (My one true lov--Oh darn, Meimei`s there *Waves* Hi, baby~! ^^U), Jiraiya, Orochimaru, Sora, Zidane, Tidus, Tamaki, Matsumoto and Zaraki~

To hell with it, let`s debate about anime. We`re young, and we only live once!

smileeloser101

10-16-2008, 07:50 PM

~Looks up, down, and all around for the debate~

firedale2002

10-16-2008, 07:53 PM

Wall of text? Not at all, but it's impossible to adequately show the basis of your belief or argument with only a line or two.

"Yes, there is sentient life other than humans."

That statement alone just won't do, you have to back it up somehow, otherwise people start saying "Well what makes you think that?" then you have to answer that question, and back and forth... so just easier to think of everything you can at the start, so people don't have to waste forum space simply asking "Um... why?"

hanymurder

10-16-2008, 08:01 PM

McCain smiles waaay too much..well in the latest debate.
All they are doing lately is talking about each other instead of what they will do.

ShonenHero

10-16-2008, 08:06 PM

McCain smiles waaay too much..well in the latest debate.
All they are doing lately is talking about each other instead of what they will do.

I have a slight feeling that you think this thread is solely about THAT debate, Hany...

And its not, read the first post and it`ll fill you in

Now, if you wanted to debate about the upcoming elections in the United States, count me out hahaha~

lenore_lurks

10-16-2008, 08:20 PM

Wall of text? Not at all, but it's impossible to adequately show the basis of your belief or argument with only a line or two.

And I'm not suggesting that we condense our arguments to a mere 2 lines... but have a look through the pages. Although what the posters are saying are wonderful points and considerations, when you debate you really have to get to the core of the matter, and we're just not doing that. We're instead beefing things up with numerous extended examples, stories, comparisons and waffle. They are just walls of text.

I just feel it would be a more effective to K.I.S.S (keep it simple stupid) than take up several scrolls of the mouse just to read a single reply on one of the many topics at hand.

smileeloser101

10-16-2008, 08:21 PM

Presidential elections (in the USA anyway) are always about who bashes who the most, and candidates always seem to tap dance around the important questions. It's just about voting for whoever sucks the least...

Edit: So...non-presidential debate? Anyone have a good debate question?

lenore_lurks

10-16-2008, 08:22 PM

There is also a presidential election 'debate' thread on the off-topic section thats pretty interesting.

UzumakiW

10-16-2008, 08:29 PM

Yep yep. I'm actually both happy and surprised to see everyone's debate in there are actually pretty professional type of debating. No one is flaming or getting people angry.

RikoRain

10-16-2008, 08:34 PM

I have a slight feeling that you think this thread is solely about THAT debate, Hany...

And its not, read the first post and it`ll fill you in

Now, if you wanted to debate about the upcoming elections in the United States, count me out hahaha~

I think presidential debating shouldnt go in here >.> First because theres already a thread for it, and second, politics suck.

Lets not ruin a good thread by bringing in political debate for the pres of 2008 please DX

Lordlymight

10-16-2008, 08:39 PM

To hell with it, let`s debate about anime. We`re young, and we only live once!

As an anime lover, and surrounded by obvious anime lovers, a true debate is unlikely. So I will take the stance of Devil's Advocate and simply say that...

Resolved:

Anime is a poor excuse for an art form

discuss...

lenore_lurks

10-16-2008, 08:59 PM

I think some forms of anime are poor excuses for art forms. Alot of serial anime, such as Pokemon, just aren't designed to blow you away with their visuals. They come along, tell you a story, say 'to be continued!' and go away again.

But then you get films, real films, which are just so mesmorising and spectacular, such as Ghost In The Shell, Akira, Millenium Actress, Robot Carnival and well, pretty much every Miyazaki film, and these are known not simply for their storylines, but their art. Real art. Hand drawn stuff that took thousands of hours to complete.

People have varying opinions about what is art. The debate on 'what is art' will forever rage on, because you will always get those people saying that a chair is not art, because art to them is an oil painting in a gallery, not a household object.

Some some people wouldn't even consider anime to be art, because it is not what they imagine to be art. It's a cartoon. It's a silly kids show. It's not an oil painting.

But I feel that it is art, all of it. But there are varying degrees of quality within it. It's not wholly a poor form of art, it's actually highly accomplished, thought out, planned, storyboarded, and serves a purpose. To entertain. To bring joy. To make you think about things diffefrently. To inspire the imagination. It's just that some do this more effectively than others.

RikoRain

10-16-2008, 09:01 PM

as an anime lover, and surrounded by obvious anime lovers, a true debate is unlikely. So i will take the stance of devil's advocate and simply say that...

Resolved:

Anime is a poor excuse for an art form

discuss...

BLASPHEMY!

Anime is a GREAT for of art!
It teaches proportion, by both teachign them how to draw them in proportion and out of proportion. It teaches body parts, and spacial reasoning, and thinking in 3d (after all to draw some of those poses you have to think in 3d).

Not to mention Anime requires some sort of plot usually, which then gets the person thinking of storylines, depth of character, importance.... in order to make the character not raep your eyes, they then have to think pf patterns for color, pairs, matching, what clashes etc etc

D: Lordly blasphemicccccccccc

ewwwwwwwwwwwwww

(I want to make you a new sig..)

OH YEAH btw I think the stupid plotless animes suck. Liek Pokeman was only good for basic storylining alongside the game, other than that it was junk.
More animes that are BAD:
Bobobobobo
Lol I cant think of more atm but you get my point, the pointless animes are stupid. The oens that are depthy are good :)

Shaden

10-16-2008, 09:07 PM

Answer to an earlier question from someone: I've never taken a psychology/higher English class nor have I ever thought about it. But who knows... :P

Anime is a poor excuse for an art form

discuss...

Note: I dislike most anime.

I disagree with you here Lordly. In my eyes, art is a creative way to express emotions or show something to others. Animes' particular art form shouldn't be judged altogether as poor because it is an artists personal style of expressing himself/herself. I feel that art forms, in general, can't be judged without it being someones total opinion.

Sure, anime could be said to have a bland, plain, and/or cliche art style that is for children or people with no talent in real art, but that is simply not true. As I said before, art is one persons personal way of expressing themselves - and therefore anything that can be used to show emotion or tell a story could be considered art.

Abstract art touches lightly on this subject as well; a lot of people argue it isn't a true form of art but merely splotches and bursts on whatever medium the artist used. However, to the artist, it conveys something bigger that not everyone may see.

This is how art should be defined. This is why anime, while plain or bland, is still an art form. It expresses emotion and represents a story no matter how simple it may be.

I've never argued an opinion as such, which I honestly believe this is, so a bit difficulty writing this up. xD

Poisoned77

10-16-2008, 09:09 PM

Responding to the question of life existing off of our planet. I will be examining the chances for extraterrestrial life based upon biological definitions, astronomical, and statistical facts.

I am going to start by defining what biologists accept as the most basic requirements for life.

A life from must be able to:

metabolize
reproduce
react to stimuli
ability to grow
through natural selection adapt to their environment through successive generations

I will declare, right now, that I believe without doubt that there are lifeforms somewhere out there, whether they be unicellular organisms, humanoid aliens, or organic robots (we will get to that one later).

Now that I have defined what is the base requirements for categorizing an organism as living I will now travel to my astronomical and statistical part of the argument. Our Milky Way galaxy has been estimated to holding around 200 billion other stars (more recent calculations have estimated the true number closer to 400 billion stars). Our sun resides about halfway between the center of the galaxy and the edge of the Saggittarius spiral arm. Astronomers have discovered 313 extrasolar planets around stars in our stellar neighborhood. About five percent of these are composed of rocky material not unlike the stars of our inner solar system. And that's just within a few thousand light years of our planet. Our galaxy is around 100,000 light years in diameter.

The Hubble Space Telescope has used its Deep Space lens to identify and catalogue thousands of galaxies. Some bigger, some smaller than the Milky Way, but without a doubt all of them hold several billion stars within them.

Going even further out, astronomers have mapped the distribution of galaxies in the universe and have found that giant superstructures, the largest objects ever known, comprise of many millions of galaxies. the largest of such structures is the Sloan great Wall. Measuring 1.37 billion light years long and resides around one billion light years away form our galaxy. This giant object is made up solely of galaxies.
If one is familiar in even the tiniest fraction with probability, one would know that it is almost statistically impossible for life to only exist on our planet with the literal trillions upon trilllions of chances it has.

Does this mean we will ever come in contact with other beings? Probably not. The vast distances presented would thwart even the most advanced race of lifeforms from being able to move across it in a relatively short timeframe. Serious advancements faster-than-light (and a few reinventions of the laws of physics) or near-lightspeed travel would have to come about before we can eve think about visiting our closest stellar neighbor.

I also have to give thought to the fact that life may NOT exist beyond our planet. It has been shown by many that life existing on our planet was such a convergence of luck that we are fortunate it happened at all. If our planet had a been a fraction closer or farther away from the Sun we wouldn't be here. If the carbon atom had never existed, we wouldn't be here. If the mass of a proton or an electron had been one iota different form what it is, the Big Bang would never have even had a chance of occurring. Could our existence be a giant cosmic fluke? Perhaps in this universe we are the only beings that exist. Perhaps in another universe there are many beings that we would label as extraterrestrials.

Another theory presents that we may be living in a post-biological universe. I am sure you all are familiar with The Transformers. Some scientists believe this may not be far off from the truth, and not far off form our future as well. The evidence is right in front of our noses. As we have evolved and our quest for knowledge has grown greater, our machines and computer processors have grown smaller and faster. Our fastest supercomputers now can outstrip the number of calculations that the human brain can perform in a minute by a large margin. Our frail human bodies are subject to aging, sickness, an injury. It would be only logical for an intelligent lifeform to shed its biological shell and place its consciousness in a robotic frame. If this were true, it would be very unlikely these beings would or could interact with us. Their intellects would be so far above ours that communication would be impossible. It would be like us trying to speak with a colony of ants.

Again, I believe that there are other forms of life out there among the stars, but I also believe that it is one mystery that humans are cursed to speculate on until the end of our days.

Are we truly alone?

ShonenHero

10-16-2008, 09:37 PM

OH YEAH btw I think the stupid plotless animes suck. Liek Pokeman was only good for basic storylining alongside the game, other than that it was junk.
More animes that are BAD:
Bobobobobo
Lol I cant think of more atm but you get my point, the pointless animes are stupid. The oens that are depthy are good :)

But Riko, each anime has a different purpose, some are for you to get interested in the storyline, explore different concepts, think about certain aspects of life, etc.

And some are there for you to laugh your head off

Like Bobobobo Bobobo, which I love

It`s a delightful parody of Hokuto No ken (First of the North Star) and, well, not much more to say, it`s really funny, and the drawing fits its purpose

Like Pokemon, that also fits its purpose: Showing the monsters so that people buy the videogame, or for people who played the videogame to see the series because of the monsters. I agree that the Pokemon anime has a serious lack of argument and creativity, but that`s just not what it was made for *Shrugs*

Besides, you already said you liked YuYu Hakusho. Is that depthy? How?

Talking about battles after the other, as my username suggests, I`m an uber fan of Shonen in all of its forms, and i`ve watched or read most (Well known, and i say this because there`s an infinite amount of mangas and anime that never reach the eyes of people outside Japan) titles under this cathegory. For Lordly who may not know the term, Shonen refers to the titles aimed at "Boys" (Shonen means boy) the ones that include battles, attacks, shouting those attacks, monsters, mechas, comedy, special powers, etc. (Shojo, which means "Girl" is the same, for girls. And "Seinen" are the ones that treat adult themes and which are serious business, like Battle Royale and Gantz)

Anime is a poor excuse for an art form

discuss...

As Shaden already said, being a form of art, every opinion about it is subjective. Of course everyone`s entitled to their opinion, and that`s what we do here, interchange opinions. Now, on this subject...

I absolutely prefer manga to anime, but since you posed the question about anime, I`ll just say that i mostly agree with Shaden`s views on any form of art

Are we truly alone?

Nothing to add to what you said Poison, but I want to believe

UzumakiW

10-16-2008, 09:51 PM

I feel anime is, in some ways, a form of art. As Lenore said, a great example would be any of Miyazaki's movies. His movies are, without a doubt, great forms of art. The visuals in his movies are amazing. Not only that, the storylines, the music, everything in his movies are art.

Sure, some animes are pretty basic and simple, though, there are a lot out there that have a lot of detail into the visuals they have. Especially compared to the cartoons made in America. Me, being a horrible artist, can pretty much replicate a lot of cartoon characters in American cartoons, may not be exact, but it's still close. Me trying to draw anime style characters would be a waste of time because I could never replicate an anime character considering the details the seem to put in a lot of them.

And art doesn't just come in the form of visuals. Music can be considered art by their sound. Books can be considered art by the content of the book. So who's to say any composed music or the story line in an anime isn't art? This type of art can also be seen in animes, and from what I've seen, it's done very well in some instances.

So, I believe anime is a good form of art. There are many great examples out there, especially, like I said previously, in all of Miyaki's movies like My Neighbor Totoro and Nausicaa and the Valley of Wind where the visuals, plots, and music are simply amazing.

firedale2002

10-16-2008, 10:08 PM

(Just so everyone knows, it was a Devil's Advocate question, hehe, he doesn't agree with it, just being the 'opposing side')

I believe a good anime falls into the same art category as a flowing poem or an epic song. It's not just one part of it that makes it special and wonderful, it's the completeness of it.

I've seen silent anime, etc. Depending on the whole jest of it and how it flows, it can turn out great and strangely wonderful, or completely and wholey 'sucky.'

But the truth is, just like in art, one person's junk is another person's art. For example, in art painting, I don't really consider some of Christeas's painting as art (it simply looks like someone took a round painting brush, put color on it, then dotted the canvas) but others would most likely pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) for it.

All in all, yes, a 'good' anime with a complete story, a good basis or background (sometimes without) should be considered a form of art, the same as a poem is considered artistry. Theatre is art, so why not a play with drawn people?

Poisoned77

10-16-2008, 10:13 PM

What is art? Art can be many things. Some people describe art as the creation of something through utilizing skills learned after years of hard work. Others consider art to be something that has to be academically taught. Still others believe that art has to follow a certain formula. Art fulfills the human desire to depict that which we encounter within the boundaries of our natural world and within ourselves.

Some people try to quantify and categorize art. Modern artists such as Jackson Pollock are generally considered to have less technical skill than Caravaggio or Jan Vermeer. But not many people consider anyone of them to be any less of an artist. While the painters of centuries ago strove to depict in their art humanity at its perfection, art now tries to explain the emotions through color.

Art as an academic principle exists only in the context with which you place it. When a man in 1917 bought a urinal from a store, placed it on its side, named it "The Fountain" and installed it in a gallery, he shook the art world to its very roots. This is not art they told him. You did not create it. To their outrage he told them more or less, "It is art because i say it is art. It is art because it exists in an art gallery. It is art because, whether you like it or not, it has stimulated your consciousness and provoked you to respond, discuss, and ponder its meaning. Art has become relativistic to every viewer. When one person views a painting of the American flag they may see that the painter created a flag. Another person may interpret the painting as a picture of an American flag. They may ponder what the artist was trying to do with this image. Was it meant as satire? A show of patriotism? Criticism? It matters not what the artist was trying to convey, but the fact that they conveyed something that made it art.

So what about that which does not hang upon a wall in some cold, sophisticated art gallery? Is the carpenter who crafts elegant chairs out of raw blocks of wood not an artist? Is the potter who sells teapots and terra cotta wares at their local farmer's market an artist? What makes them part the "crafts" camp and Picasso an "artist". is it simply the fact that their work is utilitarian, or that they would rather make a living selling something you can use rather than something you can discuss and ponder over?

How is an animated clip stuck in an art gallery any different from the cartoonist who slaves over his work, drawing cell after cell only to be passed off as slightly better than a drawer of newspaper comics?

How can you qualify one person's work as art, and disqualify another's if the same aesthetic sense is present in both? Is a child's finger painting at the will and whim of their developing psyches any different from a trained artist drawing their brush across the canvas while their sub-conscious gets recorded in pigment oil and color?

Lordlymight

10-17-2008, 12:39 AM

@both Lenore, Shaden and Poisoned

Normally I won't post on topics I pose, but since this is on a related, but tangent topic I would like to say that I believe that both of you have defined art in a way that is not only insightful, but difficult to deny.

Art, in the purest since of the word, is individual. It is an expression of self, no matter how simple. Whether others appreciate this expression is what defines you as a good artist or not, but that which is created is art, regardless of opinion. Kudos to you both.

Also, specifically for Shaden: Opinion is a perfectly reasonable topic for debate. In fact it is one of the best. The reason is that to debate fact only requires one side to disprove the fact and the debate ends. Opinion, on the other hand, requires that you examine your beliefs, make persuasive arguments, defend your position, and eventually see things from many new points of view.

Lordlymight

10-17-2008, 12:59 AM

Topic Posed:

Defend a position you hold strongly.

The first step to this topic is to decide on something that you have a firm opinion on. An example might be something along the lines of you believe that children should not be subject to corporal punishment in school, or that drunk drivers should be sentenced to death, etc. The next step is to offer a single paragraph in defense of your belief.

Be prepared, I encourage everyone to challenge these beliefs. It is perfectly reasonable to take an opposing viewpoint purely for the purpose of challenging the belief.

RULES

1. This is more of a fun exercise in "Leading the examined life" than a true debate. This is an opportunity to take something you believe strongly in and see it from new points of view.
2. Be open-minded. Be prepared to have your mind changed.
3. DO NOT GET EMOTIONAL IN YOUR DEBATE. (the little dot at the end of that line is a period, as in no further comment needed).
4. Be respectful. It is very important in a debate like this to allow your opponent room to move. If you try to beat them, you have already lost. This is not a contest. It is an exchange of ideas. If you pose a counter to someone's position, and they do not change their mind, then your job is done.
5. No religion, no politics (in the classic sense), no "adult" themes. Keep it to subjects that anyone can pose to. This has two distinct benefits. It keeps the thread open, and allows maximum participation.
6. Stay within the 1 paragraph rule for your initial post. Follow-on post need not follow this rule, but I would recommend that we keep our posts short for reasons stated earlier in the thread.
7. READ THE POSITION. Do not read a few lines and assume you got it.

If any of the rules aren't followed, I will give you negative reputation. If it gets out of hand, I will ask Takimi to close the thread and we can start over elsewhere. This can get out of hand real fast. I have withheld this subject up to now to test the water and we have done well. Let's have some fun

irroc29

10-17-2008, 01:14 AM

That sounds scary. Can it be something simple? Or does it have to be deep?

Takimi

10-17-2008, 01:14 AM

You can ask me, I'm more likely just ask the CL's to delete the posts :D

I believe, that criminals should have the right to vote. Anyone that has a felony has their first amendment stripped. However, those with a misdemeanor are allowed to vote. They committed a crime as well, yet they may vote while Felons may not. I would ask that how are we justified in taking someone's rights away? What is there to stop us from pronouncing the same sentence upon others? A friend of mine says she believes that the Judicial System is correct in stripping their rights away. I say that our system is not based on "Eye for and Eye," but rather gloats and prides itself on being "Just and Merciful." Not all felons have killed someone. Not all felons have done something so horrid, that we feel "justified" in reducing them to less than citizens, no matter what they did.

irroc29

10-17-2008, 01:24 AM

The government can't really make a law based on scenario though. How can we say which felons get the right to vote and which do not? And if we say that all felons get the right to vote, would you want a mass murderer to vote for your president? (Leaving out that "one vote doesn't matter") I think the issue lies behind the fact that we do not know some of these mentally. If they are unstable enough to slaughter their families or **** handfuls of women, are they stable enough to comprehend politics? Are they stable enough to understand the ideas and policies of the people who run our country? It's either all felons get the right to vote, or none--which would you prefer?

Takimi

10-17-2008, 01:31 AM

Our country was built supposedly, on the idea that all men are equal (not that it took them a couplehundred year to get there). Right now in school, we are turning the Electoral College inside and out and for the first time, I know how the voting goes. I knew the people themselves didn't really vote in the new president, just not how.

But you see here, not all felons killed/raped/murdered someone. And if the government can say, okay, this group can't vote, what is there to stop them from virtually just saying you can't vote? I would prefer that all men were treated equal. In which case, means allowing the felons to vote, because they are people as well.

irroc29

10-17-2008, 01:37 AM

Well, I agree with you. Our country is based on the principle that all men are created equal. If all men are create equal, why did the murderer take away the person's life? Didn't the victim lose their right to vote?

I also agree that not all felons have committed terrible crimes, in fact, some felons may not have even committed a crime. This doesn't negate what I said earlier though, the government can't make a law based on personal situations or degree of crimes--it's all felons have the right to vote or none of them.

Poisoned77

10-17-2008, 02:55 AM

Aww...I wanted to continue discussing art, it's my one of my favorite subjects :p

irroc29

10-17-2008, 02:58 AM

and darn, I clicked this expecting something entertaining at 4am in the morning -.-

---that's on topic right? o-o

Poisoned77

10-17-2008, 03:25 AM

LadyMystra

10-17-2008, 03:34 AM

Aww...I wanted to continue discussing art, it's my one of my favorite subjects :p

The topic changes almost every night, and some days there are multiple topics. :D

RAWizner

10-17-2008, 04:22 AM

I disagree, but I do see you point in that the effecancy of weapons has improved and yet it is still not the gun that kills, it is the person. I grew up in a house with 3 guns my father and mother taught me and my siblings from a very early age to respect the gun, that it is not a toy. What we need is not the removale of the second ammentment but the stronger laws to limit the type of weapon one person can get. We need education on how to properly handle a fire arm. I am now in my 20s with a husband that owns a gun and I plan to teach my children the proper way to handle a gun like mine did.

UzumakiW

10-17-2008, 07:29 AM

Hmm...any topic we have a strong position on....Let me go to school and think about something appropriate to discuss here...

RikoRain

10-17-2008, 08:24 AM

Topic Posed:
RULES

1. This is more of a fun exercise in "Leading the examined life" than a true debate. This is an opportunity to take something you believe strongly in and see it from new points of view.
2. Be open-minded. Be prepared to have your mind changed.
3. DO NOT GET EMOTIONAL IN YOUR DEBATE. (the little dot at the end of that line is a period, as in no further comment needed).
4. Be respectful. It is very important in a debate like this to allow your opponent room to move. If you try to beat them, you have already lost. This is not a contest. It is an exchange of ideas. If you pose a counter to someone's position, and they do not change their mind, then your job is done.
5. No religion, no politics (in the classic sense), no "adult" themes. Keep it to subjects that anyone can pose to. This has two distinct benefits. It keeps the thread open, and allows maximum participation.
6. Stay within the 1 paragraph rule for your initial post. Follow-on post need not follow this rule, but I would recommend that we keep our posts short for reasons stated earlier in the thread.
7. READ THE POSITION. Do not read a few lines and assume you got it.

If any of the rules aren't followed, I will give you negative reputation. If it gets out of hand, I will ask Takimi to close the thread and we can start over elsewhere. This can get out of hand real fast. I have withheld this subject up to now to test the water and we have done well. Let's have some fun

Should put these in the OP so new people see them first :D I havent looked to see if Taki did that already

I believe, that criminals should have the right to vote. Anyone that has a felony has their first amendment stripped. However, those with a misdemeanor are allowed to vote. They committed a crime as well, yet they may vote while Felons may not. I would ask that how are we justified in taking someone's rights away? What is there to stop us from pronouncing the same sentence upon others? A friend of mine says she believes that the Judicial System is correct in stripping their rights away. I say that our system is not based on "Eye for and Eye," but rather gloats and prides itself on being "Just and Merciful." Not all felons have killed someone. Not all felons have done something so horrid, that we feel "justified" in reducing them to less than citizens, no matter what they did.

In a way you could kinda say this is like how they are refusing to let homosexuals marry. After all, its not the marriage they really care about, its if they adopt, the kid should be able to live with the partner instead of shipped off to an adoption center should anything happen to the other partner. Its so if one should get hurt, their lover gets to take care of the most important things.

After all, they are people too. And if theyre your lover they probably know more about you than anyone else, so it should be them to decide.

Sorry to hit a touchy subject, but its just another example that our country denies some people a simple thing for a stupid reason.

Now now.. Felons.. I believe it should be the degree... If is some maniac whack job likely to burn my eyeballs out and eat my brain, yeah, I dont want him voting, I dont want him having a chance to sway the vote between the "good" one I like and the "bad" one I dont like. Heck he miht just vote the worst one just for the heck of it to screw with us.

Then again, touchy subject for me. My dad did something naughty when I was little, and Im pretty sure hes not allowed to vote cus of it.
Mwahahahahah.
-insert any bad word you want for him-, deserves it.

---------------------------------------------------

Oh and Poisoned, if you wanna keep talking about art, then keep on talking! :D It doesnt have to die xD Heck sometimes we get people way back here at the end bringing up that very first topic.

and again I havent looked, but is Taki updating the OP with tthe topics?

smileeloser101

10-17-2008, 08:25 AM

Ok... here goes.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution has outlived its usefulness. The time has come to remove it and adapt our Constitution to the modern age. The Second Amendment was created a mere decade after our founders threw off the shackles of a tyrant. Fresh in their minds were the ridiculous laws imposed upon the now independent colonists. Never again did they want any American to have to give up their musket, a tool used for sustenance as well as warfare. After over 200 years, things have changed. Weapons have gotten more powerful, more dangerous, and more available. There is no longer the need to hunt for food anymore. The NRA uses the Second Amendment as its biggest flak shield, waving their "right to bear arms" anytime they are called on it. They claim that Americans are safer when a person can purchase a sub-machine gun or an assault rifle and receive a license for it. They insist we are safe when we witness the increasing numbers of shooting homicides in our major cities. I don't believe the right to kill people is something the founding fathers had in mind. Strict Constitutionalism died out long ago along with the idea that the Constitution accounted for every application of civil rights, the founding fathers understood this when they created the elastic clause. They knew that they could not plan for every situation in the Constitution, and we need to realize that we can no longer apply every situation to the Constitution.

I disagree. It is true that the founding fathers did not forsee leaps and bounds in American technology, and that they added the Second Amendment to protect colonists. And like you said, we are not safe, but banning guns wouldn't solve the problem. Criminals would still find ways to obtain firearms as they do right now. There is a federal law in place that demands a background check on any person trying to purchase a gun. It's a weak law that almost any slippery person can slip past.

As for the NRA, they were created to protect the Second Amendment so of course they going to wave it around. They do NOT claim that American's would be safer with sub-machine guns and assualt rifles. Their stance is that more dangerous firearms such as sub-machine guns should be limited to military use only. The definition of "assualt rifle" is the main disagreement between the government and the NRA now that the Supreme Court has made
its ruling on the Second Amendment. I'm not going to elaborate much on that because I'd take up 50 more posts.

Consider the other amendments in the Constitution. Would you say that "strict Constitutionalism" should not be applied to any person undergoing cruel and unusal punishment? Or martyring? Or someone speaking out against an opinion, as you do now?

Lordlymight

10-17-2008, 11:16 AM

Aww...I wanted to continue discussing art, it's my one of my favorite subjects :p

None of the topics close, per say. The variety of topics is to inspire max participation, but by no means does the introduction of one topic end a previous one. I am very interested on listening to what new addition you can add to the art topic, since you have demonstrated to me in particular elsewhere that you have a significant knowledge on the subject.

Also, and this is for everyone. The current topic is extremely open-ended, so I am going to give it a few days before posting something new. It would make me very happy to see everyone post on this one. As a matter of fact, feel free to post several. This is a great place to challenge your ideas and gain perspective.

Oh, and someone else asked about depth. No, you can talk about your preference for ergonomic keyboards or why you think it is bad to spit on sidewalks. I would prefer honest beliefs rather than comedic relief. We have plenty of places for that, but it doesn't have to be soul-bearing if that makes you uncomfortable.

By the way, before anyone brings it up, I want to clarify my definition of "political"

As can be seen below, both of the topics I quote have a political bent. I know that eventually someone is going to say, "hey, he said no politics." The difference between the following topics and what I meant by politics is that the below are sweeping issues that happen to be dealt with politically. What I don't want to see is a discussion on politics in and of itself (political parties, conservative, moderate or liberal viewpoints, particular candidates). I don't even mind if we discuss political systems, so long as we don't get into the flammable material inherent. I just wanted to throw that out there so no one felt limited in that regard.

You can ask me, I'm more likely just ask the CL's to delete the posts :D

Whatever works...

I believe, that criminals should have the right to vote. Anyone that has a felony has their first amendment stripped. However, those with a misdemeanor are allowed to vote. They committed a crime as well, yet they may vote while Felons may not. I would ask that how are we justified in taking someone's rights away? What is there to stop us from pronouncing the same sentence upon others? A friend of mine says she believes that the Judicial System is correct in stripping their rights away. I say that our system is not based on "Eye for and Eye," but rather gloats and prides itself on being "Just and Merciful." Not all felons have killed someone. Not all felons have done something so horrid, that we feel "justified" in reducing them to less than citizens, no matter what they did.

I am more likely to agree to taking the rights from misdemeanor offenders than giving rights to felony offenders. That said, here is more the point of my counter.

You ask, "What is there to stop us from pronouncing the same sentence upon others?"

I say that you are what stops them, and me, and every other American (more specifically United Statesan [I just made that word up, please hold your applause], I cannot speak for other countries, my knowledge of international law is shaky at best). While a vast majority of the population has grown complacent and secure in the status quo (as can be seen by the allowance of such laws as the Patriot Act), if something as dramatic as the loss of vote for the common citizen were to take effect, I believe it would be seen with considerable resistance. Indeed, the right to vote being absolutely fundamental to Democracy, it would be nigh impossible to justify to the eyes of the international community.

Ok... here goes.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution has outlived its usefulness. The time has come to remove it and adapt our Constitution to the modern age. The Second Amendment was created a mere decade after our founders threw off the shackles of a tyrant. Fresh in their minds were the ridiculous laws imposed upon the now independent colonists. Never again did they want any American to have to give up their musket, a tool used for sustenance as well as warfare. After over 200 years, things have changed. Weapons have gotten more powerful, more dangerous, and more available. There is no longer the need to hunt for food anymore. The NRA uses the Second Amendment as its biggest flak shield, waving their "right to bear arms" anytime they are called on it. They claim that Americans are safer when a person can purchase a sub-machine gun or an assault rifle and receive a license for it. They insist we are safe when we witness the increasing numbers of shooting homicides in our major cities. I don't believe the right to kill people is something the founding fathers had in mind. Strict Constitutionalism died out long ago along with the idea that the Constitution accounted for every application of civil rights, the founding fathers understood this when they created the elastic clause. They knew that they could not plan for every situation in the Constitution, and we need to realize that we can no longer apply every situation to the Constitution.

The forefathers were wiser than they may have known.

I disagree with you for the following reason. An armed populace is a free populace. I could care less about criminals. They are a problem, make no mistake. But if there is one thing a criminal is not, its respectful of the law. What I am worried about is my government. From the historical record, the JPFO has published a list of gun control laws that were inacted immediately before WWII. If the Jewish population had been allowed firearm ownership, it is quite possible some of the worst atrocities of the modern era could have been halted. Even today, some of the controls in place could severely limit our ability to react to a military clamp on our civilian world.

I have made it clear time and again, if ever ordered to confiscate weapons from my fellow citizens, I will readily, willingly, and boldly defy those orders and take up arms if necessary in defense of those citizens. I understand this will be complicated if as a populace, those citizens grant the government that right. But in an effort to keep things simple...

Should put these in the OP so new people see them first :D I havent looked to see if Taki did that already

I would want a few things modified before that happened. These were rules for this particular topic, not all topics as a whole. You are correct that some of these could apply to all the topics, and if we want to have a hardline ruleset, then I'd be happy to assist Takimi in getting something set up.

Dr_Feelgood

10-17-2008, 03:44 PM

idk why but i just hate looking at this thread xD

irroc29

10-17-2008, 04:42 PM

Personal stories really take the fun out of these arguments, just reminding some people of that.

The forefathers were wiser than they may have known.

I disagree with you for the following reason. An armed populace is a free populace. I could care less about criminals. They are a problem, make no mistake. But if there is one thing a criminal is not, its respectful of the law. What I am worried about is my government. From the historical record, the JPFO has published a list of gun control laws that were inacted immediately before WWII. If the Jewish population had been allowed firearm ownership, it is quite possible some of the worst atrocities of the modern era could have been halted. Even today, some of the controls in place could severely limit our ability to react to a military clamp on our civilian world.

I'm curious why you think that these atrocities would have been halted. (The italicized statement is what I am referring to). Although I agree with your statement as a whole, we should be able to overthrow government officials who begin to act irrationally, but I do not think that this would make things less violent in the slightest. In fact, wouldn't it make it more violent? If all of the military has guns and only some of the Jews had guns, who would win? And wouldn't the military begin to act much more violently--slaughtering people in their homes giving no chance for survival at a concentration camp? The way I see it, a few of the Jewish people have guns, some of them act violently, which then infuriates the N*zis so they react by killing every Jew in that town.

I know that wasn't your main point--but I found that statement not very justifiable in your argument, which was otherwise something that I would have agreed with.
--Basically, I don't think that weapons are going to better any type of situation.
Look at the middle east and what weapons have done? Weapons cause destruction, it doesn't matter who the holder is. Weapons are meant to cause inflict harm--whether to protect or to sin, that's what they do.

lostangelrequiem

10-18-2008, 03:07 AM

idk why but i just hate looking at this thread xD

Probably because of all the walls of text xP

I'd like to join in on the current debate however a) I am not American so all this talk of American law is like O_O to me and b) I despise guns (except in video games xD) and don't really like talking about them.
So instead, have a bump because this thread is genuinely interesting =3

RikoRain

10-18-2008, 01:31 PM

Probably because of all the walls of text xP

I'd like to join in on the current debate however a) I am not American so all this talk of American law is like O_O to me and b) I despise guns (except in video games xD) and don't really like talking about them.
So instead, have a bump because this thread is genuinely interesting =3

._.

Lol and I used a personal story because my thoughts would seem contradictory or odd on that matter because my logic is clashing with my hatred. Thus, a reasoning might be nice if anyone wondered.

Keep in mind peoples personal experiences and stories give you background behind their reasoning.
I find it interesting. Like the fact that a kid who is scared of dogs even tho hes never remembered meeeting a aggressive dog will have suppressed a memory of being attacked by a dog when he was little. Kinda fun how the mind works like that.

Lordlymight

10-18-2008, 07:02 PM

Personal stories really take the fun out of these arguments, just reminding some people of that.

I disagree, personal stories add experience and perspective. The danger is in allowing your feelings to be hurt if someone goes against what you learned from that experience. Thick skin + open mind cures that issue entirely. As Kaiten said, sometimes the reasons may be hidden.

I'm curious why you think that these atrocities would have been halted. (The italicized statement is what I am referring to). Although I agree with your statement as a whole, we should be able to overthrow government officials who begin to act irrationally, but I do not think that this would make things less violent in the slightest. In fact, wouldn't it make it more violent? If all of the military has guns and only some of the Jews had guns, who would win? And wouldn't the military begin to act much more violently--slaughtering people in their homes giving no chance for survival at a concentration camp? The way I see it, a few of the Jewish people have guns, some of them act violently, which then infuriates the N*zis so they react by killing every Jew in that town.

Oh I agree one hundred percent that violence would have increased, especially pre-war. I did not say that it would have stopped the violence (or the war), only that the atrocities could possibly have been stemmed. The atrocity in this case was the attempted genocide of an entire people.

I would note that those that were willing to fight found guns. They found them wherever they could, but it was for sure not through legal channels. There is even a movie opening soon (or might have already opened) that is about one such resistance movement.

Also, you assume that the Germans would have won every engagement. I do not make that assumption. I also believe that it is better to die facing your enemy defending your life than to die hopelessly. All uprising have a cost in human life. If they did not, then they would happen every time someone disagreed with a leader's decision. An uprising is costly enough that the circumstances must be dire in order to merit the cost.

The point I was making with the issue about the Jews was that they were stripped of their ability to defend themselves, their families and their neighbors by a government to which they depended. Within a decade of those controls being put into place, that same people were placed in horrible situations with no legal recourse. When it became apparent that a change was needed, they had no tools to implement that change. They were forced to scrounge like rats to protect themselves from a murderous regime.

I know that wasn't your main point--but I found that statement not very justifiable in your argument, which was otherwise something that I would have agreed with.
--Basically, I don't think that weapons are going to better any type of situation.
Look at the middle east and what weapons have done? Weapons cause destruction, it doesn't matter who the holder is. Weapons are meant to cause inflict harm--whether to protect or to sin, that's what they do.

In our world, the only defense against a weapon is another weapon. By making the price of attempting a person harm, them doing you harm, you put in place a deterrent based protection system. The more significant the harm that can be done, the less likely someone is to risk that harm.

Probably because of all the walls of text xP

I'd like to join in on the current debate however a) I am not American so all this talk of American law is like O_O to me and b) I despise guns (except in video games xD) and don't really like talking about them.
So instead, have a bump because this thread is genuinely interesting =3

You can always post your own position. You don't necessarily have to post on other people's.

RikoRain

10-19-2008, 01:14 AM

Can someone post a new topic? Seems its kinda dying.

>.<

Takimi

10-19-2008, 02:01 AM

Define Loyalty, and expand on your thoughts of it.

RikoRain

10-20-2008, 08:06 AM

LOYALTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (OK seeing as how the downloader says itll take a fricken hour to download cus some microsoft updates, mopre time to post here...)

This is gonna take me a while, alot of describing, and if I seem to contradict myself: look at it closer. Loyalty is one of those things hard to describe. Sure, you can look up a definition, but the definition will tell you next to nothing except what some peoepl think loyalty is supposed to be, or was, or is meant to be.

Loyalty is an awesome tool. :3 It is a great character trait, and most people value it. Loyalty is not standing by a person no matter what. Loyalty is standing by them when they are right, and letting them know when they are wrong. It is your duty, if you are loyal to a person, to let them know when they are set differently. Following someone into say.. a stupid debate over how the other guild KSed and your guild teamed and their guild.. blahblah, following them blindly into that isnt loyalty. Its stupidity. Loyalty would be reinforcing the facts. Standing up for those facts. Standing by your friend in those facts.

Loyalty is also.. when your friend is in trouble, you are there for them. You can either fight for them, or just offer support. It is being there for them when they need you, that is loyalty.

In a sense, you could say my idea of loyalty refers more to a brainy, emotional loyalty, than a physical "you called my friend a twit, Im gonna punch your lights out cus im loyal to em". Nonononono. You can be loyal at an emotional sense. I saw a couple in Fiesta once, where the guy had done something wrong, and was chasing someone around Eldy cursing all over the place. His wifey came in and started joining him, claiming he was right and the other person was wrong. When asked about it, she said "Of course I stand up for him, Im loyal to him"
Is this loyalty? It was meant to be, but it really isnt.
First of all, it started off as loyalty when she came to his aid, but she stopped being loyal to him when she joined him in doing something that was based on untrue facts. Its no longer loyalty then, its joining-in-bullying. Its a cult. Its a fandom. Its a pleasure both of them take, not loyalty. You could say shes working AGAINST him now, instead of being loyal, as basing actions off false facts only causes more trouble for the person.

Yes, I am going to use another example. I am a Picture and Word person, I use examples, deal with it.

Player X was in the dungeon, killing the boss. Well party Y wanted the boss for a quest, so they asked. When X said they were all dead by X's hands, party Y got mad. Person Z then came in, stating things person X did with the drops from said boss. Z claimed X used them, Z claimed X NPC'd them, Z claimed X was doing it for a quest, Z claimed X gave them to guildies, Z claimed X didnt need the money from selling the drops, yet Z also claimed that X yet again: NPC'd the items. When Party Y then stated that if X was going to NPC them in the end, that Party Y would like the items, or if Z gave them away, Party Y would like to be a part of that, since they had the boss "stolen" from them.
Z then claimed X only gave the items to guildies, after stating that X NPC's the items, and that X sells the items because "who would give away something they could sell for money"

Now.

Was Z loyal to X?
No
Because 30 minutes later, when Party Y found X in vendor sellign said items for 500s+ea, this caused more trouble for X.
So this was not loyalty, it was an attemtp at loyalty based on falst facts and infact turned against X, because all of Y came after X and pointed out the lies of X's "loyal friend".

:) I tried to keep the names out, and the genders even.

(--coughcoughhackhackgag-- The person next to me has on wayyyyyyyy too much perfume --coughcough--)

Btw, was anyone else in MCJROTC? Anyone remember ol JJ DID TIE BUCKLE ? xD And the 11 and 7 traits and stuff. Whoooo better get out my ol booky there, I can just ask em in order and we can debate on those :) Spiffing off Takis question

Dr_Feelgood

10-20-2008, 03:31 PM

WORLD PEACE IS IMPOSSIBLE

prove me wrong

smileeloser101

10-20-2008, 07:41 PM

Pessimistic as it is, I agree with Doc.

Dr_Feelgood

10-20-2008, 07:45 PM

People who believe it is a possibility are morons. World peace isn't human.

UzumakiW

10-20-2008, 08:08 PM

The only way there will be world peace in this world is when the human race dies off. Morbid and cynical sounding, yes, however, it is the truth ;).

Takimi

10-21-2008, 12:22 AM

Expand please and keep on topic?

RikoRain

10-21-2008, 12:41 PM

The only way there will be world peace in this world is when the human race dies off. Morbid and cynical sounding, yes, however, it is the truth ;).

Not even then.
As long as carnivores have to eat meat to survive, as long as herbivores have t eat plants to survive, as long as plants have to "eat" up soil and water to live.. there will be no world peace. World peace is relative. :)

RikoRain

10-22-2008, 07:57 AM

Guys~ Lets please keep this alive. Just because Lordly went on vacation doesnt mean this thread has to die! CMON! SPEAK UP! Lets give Lordly alot to read when he gets back > : D

ILiKePieLoRDoFKNiVeS

10-22-2008, 06:19 PM

new topic,

we need a new topic.

UzumakiW

10-22-2008, 07:10 PM

Yeah, I'll try to add some more if there's a new topic added.

Jade.Archer

10-22-2008, 07:21 PM

*Bump bump*
See? That was totally free

smileeloser101

10-22-2008, 07:26 PM

Ok here's a new topic, if anyone's reading this thread...

What is your definition of fair? And if anywhere, where do you feel fairness is found?

Jade.Archer

10-22-2008, 07:30 PM

Being Fair is leaving the last cookie in the cookie jar for me.
Note: That was a serious post.

UzumakiW

10-22-2008, 07:53 PM

Woo...this one's an interesting one.

Alrighty, as a fair warning, my post will probably have some cynicism in it. So, here we go:

First off, my definition: Fairness is treating someone the same you would as another or you would like to be treated.

Of coarse, I could easily expand on this definition, but my main focus will be about this.

Personally, I don't feel there is much fairness in the world. Sure, there are smaller situations of fairness, for example, splitting the last piece of pizza with your friend would be fair, but this is a small situation of fairness.

However, (this is where the cynical side of me comes in) when a person decides to take an innocent life, that is unfair, and that is a bigger deal than the pizza situation. It is unfair that a regular person would go to jail for a crime, but if a famous person commits that same crime, they get out of it a lot of the time, get a shorter sentence, or get the same sentence, but end up getting out earlier. Is it fair that a woman could murder a kid, but end up just going with the "insanity plea" when they should be punished for taking a life of someone, especially a kid?

Sadly, despite how happy I usually am, I am definitely a cynical person. I don't deny that, and I don't feel that will ever change.

Don't get me wrong, there is fairness in the world, but it doesn't seem to stick out as much as the unfairness =/.

ILiKePieLoRDoFKNiVeS

10-22-2008, 08:00 PM

wow... i really cant post on that..

smileeloser101

10-22-2008, 08:05 PM

Interesting views. Come on people, POST! Don't make me post on my own question...

Takimi

10-22-2008, 08:07 PM

So... Fairness--

On this, Fairness-- it does not exist.

All our lives, we are told, "Now be fair children." But think-- when in highschool-- or beyond, is anything ever fair?

You go to class. You actually did do your homework. You spent an hour on it, struggled, but got it done. You see someone across the classroom copying the answers from their friend. Someone comes by and accidentally tips your binder over and the paper is ripped. You take a zero. They get full credit. What's fair...?

And that was not an "exception" scenario-- it's happened often enough it's fairly common, at least, for me.

You and your sibling are sitting at the table, and there is only one piece of pizza left. You both glare and your hand shoots out, grabs it and pulls it back onto your plate. They don't say anything because whining is discouraged. Was that fair for them? No.

Sharing the last piece of pizza? Well that's all fine and dandy, but if you get down to it, that piece of pizza was inexorably not split into equal pieces.

I want to date someone. it's not fair to his current girlfriend that I'd like to date him-- however, is it fair to me that she treats him and me like crap, and gets away with it? Where's the justice in that?

Say I get the guy in the end-- forevermore afterwords, I shall have a crazy, psychotic girl after my blood because I "took" him from her. The fairness? One could say it's fair because she drove all her friends away--

I say that's bullcrap. It's called revenge/vengeance. However you'd like to look at it.

Would I do it? Yes I would. I'm not afraid to admit that.

We, as humans, aside from the previously established statement that we are selfish creatures by nature, are also motivated to goal down the road-- that will benefit us. Whether it is getting that last piece of pizza or liberating an enslaved race, it's to our benefit-- You may in all intentions say that, "Oh, yes, I do it because they SHOULD not be enslaved." Well, okay, maybe you do. But in the back of your mind, there's also a motivation to benefit you.

Is that fair...?

As I say again, fairness does not exist.

Takimi

10-22-2008, 08:09 PM

The newest opened topic--

Charity.

Now, I know people honestly think that they do charity for those that cannot help themselves. But, as stated, "charity" or "community service" is also required by just about every single high-school to graduate. Therefore, there is an underlying motive to participate in such activities.

While I will not say that there are none who do it for the joy of helping, for there are those that do-- I will say that many do so for more, selfish, personal motives.

Now, when I say selfish, I stress that I don't mean it in the sense of, "MINE. GIVE ME NOW." I mean selfish in the sense that as humans, we look to our desires and situations to further our own goals, or seek how to accomplish them.

So, I believe that there are people who do acts of charity for the sake of charity--
But I also believe a majority do so because it is required.

ihavelegs

10-22-2008, 08:26 PM

ok here's a new topic...is doing charity always an unselfish act?
you might think im crazy but i've seen some people do charity just so that they can have a better image. Im in highschool and I can tell that most of my friends (and quite ashamed to say, but even I) do charity and community service because that is what we need (its in our diploma course...) in order to get into a good university. So basically my classmates and I are just doing community service NOT for the community but for ourselves.

PS: are there any other people like this? I dunt wanna be the only one who seems selfish and calculating D:

smileeloser101

10-22-2008, 08:31 PM

Yes, I believe some rare people actually do charity work unselfishly. Of course I couldn't be sure because I can't see inside their mind. What I would like to know is, does it really matter if they do good deeds selfishly as long as they get it done?

Takimi

10-22-2008, 08:43 PM

Please refer to the first post for a complete list of topics in the future.

I will post the current list now for quick reference.

Open Topics
-Good vs. Evil
-Value of War
-OutSpark's Business Practices
-What is Sentinence?
-What, if any, is the value of cursing and bad language?
-The use of video games, good or bad for you, me and lil' Tim
-Anarchy
-How does one determine intelligence?
-Assuming that Human Beings are sentient, do you believe there are other sentient creatures, on Earth or awash in Space?
-Anime as an Art Form
-Freelance Topics (Take a position and defend it in one paragraph, refer to page 17)
*subtopic to Freelance* Felons and the Right to Vote
*subtopic to Freelance* 2nd Amendment and it's Usefulness
-Define Loyalty and expand upon it
-World Peace (knew it had to come up sometime)
-What is your definition of fair? And if anywhere, where do you feel fairness is found?
-Is doing charity always an unselfish act?

RikoRain

10-23-2008, 07:54 AM

Fairness doesnt exist because humans are naturally selfish.

Simple as that :D Refer to my post earlier about selfishness being part of human nature.

Youll learn in any Psychology class that charity is also a selfish act. "ihavelegs" youre not the only selfish and calculating one. Were all selfish, and Im quite calculating. My psychology teacher once told us that you can NEVER do charity as an unselfish act. Why? Because if you put your name on it, say a check, for 50k$ to a place, they know its from you. They thank you for it. They spread the word about you. Thus: betters your image. It makes you seem better than you are, and this, my friend, is a selfish act.

But what about NOT putting your name on it? She explained to me how even doing this is selfish as well.

When you do something you think is good, your body floods itself with good hormones and proteins that say "feel good!", therefore when you do something you think is good, you feel good about it. Who wouldnt want to feel good? Your mind then connects doing something good with a god feeling, and you will do these things simply because you feel good about it. And that is being selfish.

Holding the door open for someone, is the basic of examples. You remember, back in your mind, how it makes you happy to have the door held open for you, so your mind links either "hold the door open for others" with a good feeling, or "slam the damn door in their face". Depends on how much of a horses rear you are, how bad the experience, and how many times others have held the door open for you, in spite of how many times its been slammed shut.

We are creatures of habit, and we are copycat creatures. We learn by copying our parents as children, and even as adults youll find people copying others without realizing it. Its a survival technique. In the wild, the prowlers would pick off anyone weak, usually the weak one was the only one different from the remaining pack, therefore our instincts tell us : appear close enough to everyone else to survive, while being able to survive on our own by ourselves.

Oh and Taki I believe somewhere there was a brief topic on Define War and its useful/uselessness or something. ^^

143snake

10-23-2008, 11:14 AM

ShonenHero

10-23-2008, 11:24 AM

i don't know if you can debate on this. I was over my friend's house last night and we ordered a lot of food, expensive food.

So for the topic: Why would you pay $50 extra while you can pay $20 and fill up your stomach? All variety of food digest correlatively.

There are two things you gotta bear in mind when thinking about these things: Price and value, they are not the same and must not be mistaken for each other. I know all types of food digest the same, fill you up the same and whatnot, but one also has tastes, things you like more than others (And things you definitely don`t like), and a little capitalist bug in your brain that tells you the more you spend on something, the better it is. If you go to the supermarket and see two items of the same type, but of two different brands, one`s more expensive than the other. Then, the little bug starts whispering in your ear "Well... if this one`s more expensive, it`s gotta be because of something, right?". And here`s comes the moral: Don`t trust the bug. The bug doesn`t know. The only way to know is trying both yourself, the bug`s a product of our capitalist society (I`m not attacking capitalism, let`s not get into a debate about this, and if you do, I`m not posting), and we gotta learn how to extirpate it and make our own choices.

Again, if you paid more money for something, there was a cause, you liked the expensive food more than the one that would only fill up your stomach, and you knew you would, and as long as it doesn`t give you problems, you`re perfectly allowed to do it. Now, if it`s gonna give your problems, either on the short or long run, one has to think twice before doing these things, but that wasn`t the initial question. It`s all about differenciating price from value~

I`m lovin` it!

RikoRain

10-23-2008, 11:45 AM

ROFLMAO, since were on the topic of value and price..

My mom wanted to go to some new lady, shed never met before, who does freelance haircutting, SUPPOSIDLY worked at some pro-haircut place where it cost 100$ per cut, but now she works "freelance" to "save people money". Her prices? 40$ to cut and highlight.
My mom and I have been going to the same stylest/haircutter for years. We know her name by heart, she knows ours, and she knows exactly how we like our hair cut. Exactly. I dont even have to say anymore, I just go in, get it cus, pay the 13$ for the haircut, add a 3-8$ tip (depends on how long it takes her, the longer it does, the more tip I give, because usually its cus Im being extra picky or something).
Now. 13$ for this haircut, add a 3-5$ tip, and 5$ for a box of home highlighter. Thats like. 20$, for a reliable haircut, from a person you know, you knwo knows your haircut, knows what you like, and is more than happy to do exactly as you say.

Or 40$ from some lady youve never met.

=.= So really.. I unno Im biased, I find the cheaper things are, the better they work in the end. a 5$ shirt from walmart will last me 3 years, where a 20$ shirt from Target, or JCPenny or whatever, lasts me 3-4 weeks.

:| Cheap food ftw, its food. Who cares if the one that costs 15$ more tasted just a bit better.

Quantity over.. well I wont say quality, cus the cheaper food are often more healthy anyway

DF001

10-23-2008, 11:54 AM

I prefer quality over quantity.

ShonenHero

10-23-2008, 12:56 PM

I prefer quality over quantity.

Only when talking about food? Are you sure? I`d totally go for quantity on that matter, I like to eat. Period

Quantity over.. well I wont say quality, cus the cheaper food are often more healthy anyway

Hm, I don`t know about that... usually when I spend little money on food my stomach goes "Oh god please not that" and I say my stomach does, because my brain goes "Hell yeah~!". The cheap food I eat more often are instant noodles (Ah, what the heck, let`s just call it Ramen! Because Naruto`s 1337 4l\ll) l7 lº\/\/l\l5!!11) and they`re not particularly good for your body...

RikoRain

10-23-2008, 02:23 PM

Only when talking about food? Are you sure? I`d totally go for quantity on that matter, I like to eat. Period

Hm, I don`t know about that... usually when I spend little money on food my stomach goes "Oh god please not that" and I say my stomach does, because my brain goes "Hell yeah~!". The cheap food I eat more often are instant noodles (Ah, what the heck, let`s just call it Ramen! Because Naruto`s 1337 4l\ll) l7 lº\/\/l\l5!!11) and they`re not particularly good for your body...

Depends.

Lets break it down.

First its what 150 calories? Thats pretty good.
Noodles - you got your pasta
Water - you got your liquids.
And if you add stuff. Some people I know add in some sort of meat, and maybe a veggie. I used to add in veggies, so theres that.

Now Im not talkign abotu eating it 24/7/365, but its not a bad thing to have really.

And.. lets see.. cheap foods, may I add Hamburger Helpers. 1$ for the box. Go buy a 25 cent can of veggies: you have a meal that has everything. Pasta, liquids (as some require as much as 4 cups of water), meat, and veggie. Have some fruit for dessert, and viola

ShonenHero

10-23-2008, 02:35 PM

And.. lets see.. cheap foods, may I add Hamburger Helpers. 1$ for the box. Go buy a 25 cent can of veggies: you have a meal that has everything. Pasta, liquids (as some require as much as 4 cups of water), meat, and veggie. Have some fruit for dessert, and viola

But, my friend... I don`t like veggies :)

RikoRain

10-23-2008, 02:39 PM

Then j00 is gonna die!!! xD

Srsly, I didnt like veggies alot but now i get cravings for salads.

Takimi

10-23-2008, 05:41 PM

Oh and Taki I believe somewhere there was a brief topic on Define War and its useful/uselessness or something. ^^

Refer to the second item I listed in the list of topics. I believe it says the "Value of War."

RikoRain

10-23-2008, 08:15 PM

Refer to the second item I listed in the list of topics. I believe it says the "Value of War."

Oh I didnt see it

I kinda skimmed over it really fast cus I had to pee really bad

Kind aliek right now >.>

AkujinRyu

10-23-2008, 09:06 PM

How many times should a Fiesta user be able to pleed his or her case before they are banned for good? I think the good ole three strike rule is in order but i dont think everyone else will agree.

RikoRain

10-23-2008, 10:08 PM

depends on the offense, I would think.

you have to keep in mind, the degree of offenses. In a courtroom, if someones convicted of murder, they arent given a slap on the wrist cus its their first offense, they go straight to court, and do the whole thing, go to jail. But a person who got in a car wreck just gets a little -slapslap pay this fee-.

So naturally I think this applies to internet. If its just something small, a lil slap on the write, a PM or whisper against it, maybe a few hours jail or a day. But banning?
So far Ive only heard of them banning for serious reasons. Account sharing is basically stealing money from outspark, as you only have to buy 1 cs item instead of two, same for buying gold, trading gold for sc, selling your account, and etc. They ban you if you buy SC and dont have enough money, which is, again, stealing money essentially.

But you see, if they were to "plead their case" first, then they woudl be able to spend the sc on cs items, use them (say make loads of +9), sell em, and transfer the money, then claim, whoops, yeah, ban me if you want now, when theyve already done the dmg.

I DO however, think they need to send a pm/email/ some sort of no9tification telling the person why and when they were banned, and if they can fix/remedy it. Most people I know who have gotten banned, or have heard others get banned, completely did not know why. And thats sad. What good is a punishment if the person punished doesnt know what they did wrong to GET punished?

AkujinRyu

10-24-2008, 07:57 AM

RikoRain

10-24-2008, 03:07 PM

I know......but lets not compare this to the rules of the real world...but for the in-game experience. Comparing a offense in Fiesta to "murder" doesnt truely make since in the fact that the Fiesta User doesn't take anyones life. He or she just may have offend ppl in such however, i believe ppl should make friends with the block button before going to such drastic measure or by ignoring the person. Unless they are ksin you or attacking you in a non-war zone while you are trainning.....Ah! I miss Goldey so much right now.... I remember the time my guildmaster and i teamed up to kill "RealKiller" aka the bored lvl 70 something mage back in last May that was funny....she couldn't believe how fast a lvl 58 cleric and my lvl 54 fighter (with upgraded axe) could take down her hp so quickly

Ah but this game was made from teh real world, so it still applies.

Someone buying sparkcash with a credit card that doesnt have the money to back up their purchases, is still stealing in the real world. If you dont want to compare it to the real world, then youre saying this person who buys 500$ in spark cash, yet only has 5$ in their IRL account, should be allowed to do whatever they want as they wait for a "court" type ban thing, which.. oddly enough.. you get the idea from.. the real world.

Besides, you purchase spark cash with irl money.
:) They are linked, you cant un-link game world with real world. Because the game world is based within the real world.

And let me rephrase my example.. Murder cannot be done in Fiesta.. but say the EQUIVELANT to murder irl, in fiesta is say.. buying gold form 3rd party sites (dont do it). Its a "severe" offense.

Placing a "court" system in Fiesta would only allow the rule-breakers to have a 1-10 day padding time to CONTINUE their rampage, rather than being stopped immediately.

DF001

10-24-2008, 03:14 PM

I hate veggies, I wouldn't buy/eat them even if they were like 0.20€/KG

Probably why I choose quality over quantitity..

AkujinRyu

10-24-2008, 03:50 PM

RikoRain

10-24-2008, 10:33 PM

NO.No.no. Hear me out dude...."stealing may attach this world to the real world". But murder is murder and that is in real life, that is the end of someones existance on this earth. They are gone for good and can't be revived unlike the game. You may break a rule or two in this game but it will never be consider a equal contender of murder in rl.......I hope this is clear enough for you to understand. Cas to be truthful i kinda confused myself in the process of writing this thread.:)

I see your point in that but some innocent ppl get banned just because a group of ppl have a problem with them and will go to great links to see the person account is banned. And dont tell me that they need screen shot proof because there is such a thing known as "photoshop". Thus, I believe the person convicted as in rl should be able to pleed their case before the Fiesta game moniters before being banished completely dont you agree?

Ok Im going to get really blunt because you just ARE NOT understanding.

The staff members at Outspark KNOW when a photo is photoshopped. Hence why they punish people who photoshop images and try to pass them off as real to get someone banned.

And, its not stealing that attaches the real world to fiesta.
Its the fact that people in the REAL WORLD, REAL PEOPLE, real world, thought of the concept for the game, used real world items to create the game, used real world code to form the game, real world words to understand the game, and real life people to play the game.
You cant separate it. Doesnt matter what offense. Youre focusing so much on that we cant "murder" someone in Fiesta, that youre not actually reading what I posted.

And to properly compare things, there is something in Fiesta that is equivalent to murder irl. Theres an equivalent to stealing, murder, shooting, shanking, name calling, EVERYTHING, in Fiesta. Everything can be compared, and everything can have equivalents. Just because you cant see them, doesnt mean they dont exist. "If a tree falls in the forest and no ones around, does it make a sound?", yes, it does. Just because you werent there to hear the sound, doesnt mean it didnt make a sound.

And you also seem to forget that Outspark has rules. They dont just ban you for saying "hell". No, they only ban for extraneous reasons. So far, the only reasons I have seen / heard people being banned for (and this is mostly because these are the big offenses to be banned for), are:
Hacking
Account sharing / Hacking
Buying gold from 3rd Party Sites (Read the newspaper, this is actually known as stealing an intellectual material)
Charging Sparkcash with a nonvalid/expired credit card
Charging Sparkcash with a credit card that has insufficient funds

As you can see, all very good reasons, be it in Fiesta or in real life. Both are serious offenses. If you cant understand that.. then really.. honestly.. go read some books :x

And keep also in mind, that most people who get "accidentally banned", they can contact support@outspark.com and talk to Outspark about it to either get their account back, or pay a moderate fee to un-ban themselves.

So. //ENDDISCUSSION

Takimi

10-25-2008, 09:37 AM

So, what topic was this and now it's closed...? I didn't really say anything, considering I didn't really have a point to make known-- Kaity-Roo was doing a good job of that.

irroc29

10-25-2008, 10:49 AM

ILiKePieLoRDoFKNiVeS

10-25-2008, 11:36 AM

The writers should get what they put in. If they wrote crap, but the directors/actors/actresses/whoeverelse made it look good, then no, they shouldn't.

smileeloser101

10-25-2008, 12:06 PM

The writers should get what they put in. If they wrote crap, but the directors/actors/actresses/whoeverelse made it look good, then no, they shouldn't.

It's a nice idea, but it really depends what your idea of "crap" is. Or how bad the stink is...

irroc29

10-25-2008, 01:22 PM

Aren't the writers the ones that gave them their job?

RikoRain

10-25-2008, 01:51 PM

I'd just like to point a couple things:

1. This is a serious debate thread. Meaning, if someone doesn't get your idea--let it be. We're not getting angry at eachother, we're agreeing to disagree.
2. This is a serious debate thread. Meaning, use proper grammar. There's no reason you can't dot your I's and cross your T's, right?
3. This is a serious debate thread. Meaning, use serious arguments.

Next argument idea:
A couple years ago some award shows were banned because screenwriters wanted more money, do you think this is reasonable? Do you think the writer's should make more than the director? Or the actors and actresses?

Lol 1) I had to repeat myself more than a few times. I dont like that. If youre gonna come "debate", then at least attempt to understand.

Debate is about showing your opinion or analyzing something and backing it up, understanding the others side, but providing information that makes yours more. That person didnt even bother reading my post, or try to understand it. Besides.. proper grammar please.

And it wasnt even a serious topic. I totally pwnd it in my first reply.

Technically seeing that the writers just write it up, while directors do so much more, and actors more as well, I dont think the writers should get loads. Personally tho, I have no love for awards shows, so bleh :P

My two cents

ShonenHero

10-25-2008, 10:48 PM

I totally pwnd it in my first reply.

Using phrases like that one ruin the rest of the things you say, Riko...

If you pwn someone, you beat him. Here nobody beats anyone

A couple years ago some award shows were banned because screenwriters wanted more money, do you think this is reasonable? Do you think the writer's should make more than the director? Or the actors and actresses?

I don`t really think any of us is qualified to give a good response to that, but we sure can give our opinions. Even though I`m sure there`s a system that leaves everyone happy (Because there are loads of other series out there that don`t get banned... and I think the term`s cancelled ^^U) The writers are important...

Technically seeing that the writers just write it up, while directors do so much more, and actors more as well, I dont think the writers should get loads. Personally tho, I have no love for awards shows, so bleh :P

The writers just write it up?! Yeah, I`m sure they just sit down 30 minutes a day, "write it up" while they play some videogames, and get it done in no time. No, writing takes a lot of time, a lot of thinking, a lot of investigation (Because I assure you that the writers of Dr. House are not doctors, for example) a lot of... a lot of things, its not easy stuff. I`m not saying they do more than the rest, but everyone plays its part. On a party, who`s more important? The tank, the cleric who heals the tank, or the mage who blasts all the mobs? They`re all equally important and essential in achieving the final product.

Noooooow... I may be talking nonsense, because I don`t know what "Award shows" are, I just commented about shows in general, i think it worked just the same. I just read that the work of the poor writers was being unappreciated and decided to stand up for them... what, for them? For US!!

DF001

10-26-2008, 02:23 AM

The writers just write it up?! Yeah, I`m sure they just sit down 30 minutes a day, "write it up" while they play some videogames, and get it done in no time. No, writing takes a lot of time, a lot of thinking, a lot of investigation (Because I assure you that the writers of Dr. House are not doctors, for example) a lot of... a lot of things, its not easy stuff. I`m not saying they do more than the rest, but everyone plays its part. On a party, who`s more important? The tank, the cleric who heals the tank, or the mage who blasts all the mobs? They`re all equally important and essential in achieving the final product.

I second what Neo said.

ILiKePieLoRDoFKNiVeS

10-26-2008, 09:49 AM

It's a nice idea, but it really depends what your idea of "crap" is. Or how bad the stink is...
I ment that is how it should be. it would never work like that... at all.

RikoRain

10-26-2008, 09:57 AM

I see why you didnt come here before, Neo. You have absolutely no humor in here U.u

And I should say.. the writers have alot of work, but as someone else said, the writers could make a completely crappy work, and its the director, producer, actors, costume designers, lighting technicians, etc, that can turn it around and make it good.

House is a show that already appeals to the new "fad" of medical shows, so its already a success in that marker. BUT you will find most people who watch House like a CHARACTER on the show. They like the way the ACTOR fits into that character, and how the director prompted them to act. You should watch some of the bloopers. Seriously.

And there are other shows where the storyline was awesome, the actors were awesome, but the director didnt do such a good job. Youll find these shows attract people by either the plot or the actor, or a specific character, but theyll either leave it in the end, or not consider it a favorite. Dark Angel, for example, was popular for Jessica Alba and the unique science fiction / futuristic / genetic enhancement "fad", but in the end the show was cancelled and replaced.

Off the top of my head I cant remember a show / whatever, where the storyline was complete shaaaarrrrrt, because I never watched them. The writers job on those was PBBBBBBBBT so I didnt bother watching them past that.

Keep in mind her question was if the writers should get MORE than the actors/ directors/ etc. And I think: NO. Why? Because if they write a junk story, the director and actors can make it good, but if he writes a good story, a crummy director or bad actors can ruin it. So I do not think writers should get MORE than the other parts, when they can contribute to its crappiness or godliness only just as much.

ShonenHero

10-26-2008, 10:59 AM

irroc29

10-26-2008, 11:05 AM

Firstly, I just want to point out, that writer's have to go through a character analysis process before they start writing so that House is always House and Big Bird is always Big Bird. So when you say that they like a certain character--I think that they may like the character that the writer's wrote and that the actor's put into action, right?

And about the shows where the director didn't do too hot--do you realize he made more than everyone? Even though he did a crappy job? Personally, I think it's a bit hard to determine if the director did a crappy job.. It might have been the special effects team? However, the director still did a bad job for letting that work through. =P

Enough about this topic, I was just throwing something out there.

Next Topic: I think most of you will know that Square Enix announced that the next Final Fantasies would be released on XBOX as well as the PS3. Do you think it's right for SE--after 20 years of loyalty to PS3--to begin a partnership in regards to the FF franchise with XBOX?

and if not enough people know about this topic, just suggest another ^^;

and.... lol at the juggling ;o

RikoRain

10-27-2008, 12:43 PM

What you have to keep in mind is square-Enix is a bussiness first. They want as many people as possible to buy there products. In this case loyalty will only criple them in the long run.
In my opinoin the PS3 is way over priced $279 to $615 now keep in mind this is for a low end ps3 the one with the smalest hard drive. It is also the range for used/refurpished and new. (sorce google shopping)
Now from the same sorce the price for the XBox360 the one with the smalest harddrive is $190 to $391. once again this is for used/refurpished and new.
My husband is a nerd of the old order. He has to have all the newest toys all the game systems in my house there are 2 laptops, 3 pcs, 2 Xbox360, 1 ps2, 1 Wii, 1 gamecube, 1 xbow, 1 psx, 2 nintendo DS. Now the point in me saying that is there is still no ps3 the caust is too high. There are more people with a Xbox360 then a PS3 so The way I see is is Square-Enix is being very smart in opening there platform aviliblity. They stand to make a lot of money. And in the end that is what all companies want.

And a little history leason square and enix both started on the Nintendo Entertainment System not playstaion so there is no loyalty invalved. Further more the playstaion came out in 1994 in japan and 1995 in North America and a few moths after that for Europe. So in essence it couldn't have been 20 years since the system has only been around for the most 14 years.
Now keep in mind Final Fantasy 7 was the first to come out on the playstaion in Japan on January 31, 1997. And didn't hit America till September of the same year. So that is only 11 years.
(sorce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_fantasy_vii
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_(video_game)

PS My Husband saw this so I got an earfull thank him for the URLs.
Like I said he's a nerd and I'm loving it

Can we please not debate on trivial things like this?

You will always find peopel who prefer PS3 over Xbox, or XBox over Wii, or Wii over PS3. Honestly... Deal with it. Thisis a DEBATE THREAD.

:| I think Ill have to get taki here to control this or Lordly back. This is going WAY WAY out of hands, peopel bringing up really really personal things or things that really cant be debated over.

I mean sure, you can say Xbox is better or whatever, link me to Wiki (which can be edited by anyone btw), but in the end I will still liek Xbox better.
D:
BETTER TOPICS PLEASE, stop coming up with little off-topic things, or youll get this moved to the off-topic section.

irroc29

10-27-2008, 01:04 PM

RikoRain

10-27-2008, 04:28 PM

Riko I came up with the Final Fantasy topic because it is something that I really do care about. I'm sorry you find the matter trivial, and maybe it is, but your rules clearly state that it doesn't have to be deep, just something that you care about.

I don't think that you clearly read the argument and the counter argument. I didn't ask "which is better, ps3 or xbox" I asked if you felt if it was wrong for Square Enix to place it's loyalties with another console.

Sure, the situation isn't detrimental to society, but it is surely a topic that I (and many others) care about.

By the way, I don't even have a PS3--I definitely love XBOX.

I was more referring to the guy who started the whole XBOX VS PS3 post.

And first of all, the thing with the SE and PS3 and Xbox is.. quite simple. Let me try to explain it in most detail using the least words.

Sony sucks.
Literally.
No lie.
When Sony made the PS3, they crammed loads of "new and cool" things into it, completely dismissing how these new items worked together, and not even attempting to make sure they were 100% compatible with eachother. As a result, they ended up with a console that had loads of expensive equipment in it, but whos graphics were at beast, exactly like the Original Xbox and Gamecube's.

Furthermore, these expensive items COST A TON. I think it was for every full PS3 console you bought, you cost Sony 400$. And for every Min model of PS3 (I believe there were two models, a premium, and a basic, of sorts), you cost them about 250$. With this in place, Sony began to quickly lose money.

Even further, Since the console was so expensive, for only sub-par graphics and abilities, it wasnt very popular in the big scope of things. Sure you get one or two die hard fans, but most people would rather go for a WII or XBOX360.

As a result, all the games who were previously Sony-only had to begin switching. Since the newest and biggest runner in the race is Microsoft, gaining whopping amounts of new players each day, many of the game contracts are switching over to Microsoft.

In other words:
More people are playing an Xbox because Microsoft didnt screw up their console (plus, free repairs is really really nice, trust me).
PS3 cost Sony more money than gained, for only average abilities

And where do you think Sony is making up all that money? Yep, they are hitting up the prices of their games, accessories, etc, to make up for the lost money, which only means they are driving away more customers.

Its basic really, and honestly, Im glad great games like Final Fantasy, Tenchi, and other previously Sony-only games are coming to Xbox or Wii, because really, Id buy 10 Xbox's and 10 Wii's before I even consider buying a PS3. I dont care how many games are Sony-only that I love, Sony has screwed up that bad.

DF001

10-27-2008, 04:46 PM

Sony sucks, I noticed when they started selling similar Sonic games over..and over...and over...

mysty2

10-27-2008, 05:36 PM

rezerved for debat

does not want to read other post

irroc29

10-27-2008, 06:41 PM

And that's how you debate.

Anywho, next topic, someone else come up with a topic, I feel like arguing since Outspark still hasn't fixed the damn "data failure!" glitch. >>;

Soulfrit

10-27-2008, 06:44 PM

(>'.')> o <('.'<)

Takimi

10-27-2008, 06:53 PM

I hate to sound like your mother or anything but PLEASE, if you're going to post here, make it something worthwhile. one sentence replies are not the idea behind this debate thread, it's debating and introducing ideas-- if you have something you want to talk about, please think it out, write it down and try to be somewhat grammatically (and spelling) correct so others may read, comprehend your side and argue either against or for.

Now, Icchi, while that sound like a good topic, please complete your thought? Too stupid to realize what? And I'd like you to please omit the word stupid. Here, we are not declaring people "stupid," as one, it's degrading and two, it's too easy to base your argument on that, "people are stupid" concept.

Mysty, if you reserve a post for debate, please simply state, "Reserved for debate" and put it together. Stating you didn't want to read a post shows you are not considering any other's arguments, and I encourage you to do so.

A note on things, please use spell check if you are unsure of your spelling. I'd prefer if everyone had their grammar and spelling perfect, but even being half-decent is fine-- a wall of text is also not okay and please learn the use of indenting.

I don't like lecturing, but please-- this is a debate thread, not the "2 word story" or "Post to A Million Game." Serious topics, and actual debate--

Now-- on with arguing :D

ShonenHero

10-27-2008, 06:57 PM

And that's how you debate.

Anywho, next topic, someone else come up with a topic, I feel like arguing since Outspark still hasn't fixed the damn "data failure!" glitch. >>;

Now-- on with arguing

The pie-lover is right, if you feel like arguing, a debate is not the place to do it... but I`m sure you didn`t mean argue as in ARGUE, so it`s allright <3

I`ll suggest a topic for you debate junkies to write volumes about, a topic like the ones we used to have here when Lordly was around:

"What is innocence and which is its value"

Myself, being a "The Catcher in the rye" and a "Lord of the flies" lover, I`m very interested on the subject... let`s see what you have to say

Edit: No puns about the Doc`s guild, I already thought about all of them before you, so HA!

irroc29

10-27-2008, 06:59 PM

I don't indent, but I do hope that you're not referring to me when you point out the use of grammatic errors and spell checking because I've been making a point to do so on this thread. >>;

He beat me too it. ^^

irroc29

10-27-2008, 07:04 PM

What is innocence? Is there really a debate over that? I guess I'll just talk about Lord of the Flies and the innocence prevalent in that.

When the boys arrived on the island, they were innocent. They were naive. They never would have killed any of their shipwrecked brothers, but by the end of the book they were savages. So where did the innocence disappear? I'd have to say that their innocence never really disappeared. Their innocence was submerged beneath savagery and instinct. Innocence to me draws a very thin line between itself and being naive. Someone who is naive, is innocent; however, someone who is innocent is not necessarily naive.

I know I didn't really declare what innocence was, but I hope that's the kind of response you were looking for. :)

UzumakiW

10-27-2008, 07:25 PM

Ako didn't like Lord of the Flies >.>

As for the innocence topic, my opinion is close to the same as my view on the "Good Vs Evil" debate; no person is purely innocent.

Everybody in their life does something to taint their innocence. In doesn't have to be something big, but because pure means 100%, it still taints a person's innocence.

However, despite this, depending on what a person does in their life, they can be given the title "innocent."

For example, an average person who hasn't done any big, wrong things in their lives was murdered, that person would be called an innocent victim, as they should, because they did not deserve that happening.

However, if a man who murdered ten people, and was proven guilty and sentenced to death, after he was killed, no one would say he was an innocent person (though, there would be those saying that person didn't deserve death, which that in itself is another debate). Because he murdered those people, he wouldn't be an innocent victim of anything.

So, just like I said in the "Good Vs. Evil" topic, I don't believe anyone is truely pure innocent, however, the things they do in their life can grant them the title of innocent or not.

That is only my description of an innocent life. When it comes to being innocent of a crime or not, that pretty much just goes by the definition of "If you did it, you're guilty, if you didn't, you're innocent." :)

EDIT: I forgot to mention; I do believe that a child's life is actually innocent for a while. Until this child get a bit older, I believe they are innocent. This is why I angers me a lot hearing about people killing kids, kidnapping them, abusing them, etc. Those type of people anger me a lot because they are killing or hurting an actual innocent life.

ShonenHero

10-27-2008, 07:33 PM

What is innocence? Is there really a debate over that?

N... no, there`s no debate about Innocence yet. There`s good and evil and others, but they`re not exactly about innocence (If there was one, I would`ve remembered! I wouldve plunged into it~!). I`m talking mainly about kids, because we know that none of us is purely innocent... I mean, we`re using THE INTERNET right now, there`s no way someone who`s using THE INTERNET conserves his/her innocence, hahahah~

So basically, the type of innocence I was aiming at, was the one depicted on the books I mentioned: The one shown by children

Takimi

10-27-2008, 07:44 PM

One, I didn't put a topic out because Icchi had suggested one, so I asked him to refine it.

Two, I wasn't really referring to you, you're rather decent when it comes to posting.

Three, when I said argue, I meant continue with the debating and whatnot; you argue your point-- the word debate can only be used so many times. There is a difference between "argue" and "ARGUE."

Now--

Innocence
How lovely a concept, yet so dangerous a state. Innocence is a concept I hae explored many a time, and wonder where I lost it-- the initial phase--

The innocence of a child, in it's mischievous manner, yet accepting trust. Believing everything they're told-- until they learn... and here, I believe, is where it's lost.

That first time you realize Santa doesn't exist--
That first time a friend lies to you--
That first time your pet dies--
That first time you realize, man can commit evil acts.

Knowledge is beyond wonderful, but it can hurt oh so much. I have stated few times on how I have far too much time to think, and in these periods of time, I find myself thinking and thinking until I come upon a realization I can't quite fully voice (and sometimes I can).

But when you realize you yourself, are no longer innocent, you wish for it back, the sweet, blissful ignorance. A song comes to mind, "Fields of Innocence" by Evanescence.

I still remember the world
From the eyes of a child
Slowly those feelings
Were clouded by what I know now

Where has my heart gone
An uneven trade for the real world
oh I...
I want to go back to
Believing in everything and knowing nothing at all

I still remember the sun
Always warm on my back
Somehow it seems colder now

Where has my heart gone
Trapped in the eyes of a stranger
oh why...
I want to go back to
Believing in everything

Bolded, really, is what I pointed out. The child is the innocent-- until they learn. I won't condemn learning, for I love it. I love knowledge because it's knowledge. But with the realization that I, myself, am not innocent, I know that I lost something I never knew I had.

I believe there are phases of innocence as well-- ie: knowing Santa does not exist, well, it' snot realizing you yourself can do something bad, but it's a small point where you loose a bit of it. Then when you lie for the first time, or when a friend lies to you. You find out that truth isn't always truth.

Then-- when you learn what murder is. You didn't know that existed, until you watched the knews, seen it happen, or a family member dies. You suddenly find, death exists. Death is an eventuality for everyone of the mortal world. It's what will come. But when you first find out it exists? Sad day indeed.

And then it goes on-- degrees slowly stripped away until you wonder what other horrors await. I've found myself crying sometimes-- realizing that I've done something horrible, or that I'm really not that innocent.

The Value
As a child, innocence is what protects you from becoming too old, too fast. It's your buffer against growing up. While it may seem like you want to grow up, it's far better to keep pace through childhood and your teenage years. And if you're really holding on, your young adult years too.

If a child learns at the age of 5 that the horror of murder exists and understands it-- what will happen to that child? Such a fact,a concept learned at an early age wil surely impress. Will they come to dwell upon it many a hour for many days? Who can say if it will carry through their lives, much less affect them long term, positively or negatively?

As a teenager, you may screw around, saying, "Oh, this could never happen to me." Then, it does. You will realize that you are not so innocent, exempt from the laws of mankind-- That no-one is so innocent to be exempt.

Example, Death. Death will take anyone, all Death needs is that opportunity. Most perhaps think of Death as a a simple scientific fact. I capitalize Death, because I like to use it allegorically, as itself, the concept, and using a personification to represent it.

Sometimes, you will see the representation of Death as a man dressed in black, writing names in a book. Or the woman who comes and leads you like a friend to your end. Or the violent reaper. Death is many things, yet only one. But knowing OF Death is, I believe, where it starts.

A child can learn that a goldfish will die if taken out of the fishbowl. A child can learn that someone who takes the Life of someone is a "bad man/woman." They learn OF Death, and loose that sense of innocence there.

But, the greatest loss of all, is when you realize that you have the ability to destroy, to corrupt. When you find that you can kill, maim, brandish a weapon to someone. When you find that you can play with their minds. Horror movies, especially, are known to exploit this concept.

The value? To protect our young from the horror of life we live, until they have grown to the point where they can handle the loss of Innocence, and learn of what crimes can be committed.

Can you say you are still "innocent" when you look back and realize you've lied to people? You've manipulated someone to fit your own ends? I can't. Because I've done that.

Part of living is learning, and learning is where we move from one stage of life to another. Perhaps some take longer to learn, maybe not until after they have passed through highschool-- I know some people don't bother to try now. But maybe they will learn.

My thoughts-- Innocence is not a light subject for me. I think on it endlessly sometimes. Sometimes even letting it consume me so as I might pass the time...