Mirror, Mirror wrote: calvinNhobbes wrote: Mirror, Mirror wrote: A bunch of text I didn't even read I'm not an ethicist at all, deontological, consequential, or virtue.
Hope you enjoyed wasting your time ;P Not a waste of time at all. I just proved you are a liar:
calvinNhobbes wrote: Actually, I would consider myself a virtue ethicist. ^__^ Calvin... nice mirror to look at eh?
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Mirror, Mirror wrote: calvinNhobbes wrote: Mirror, Mirror wrote: A bunch of text I didn't even read I'm not an ethicist at all, deontological, consequential, or virtue.
Hope you enjoyed wasting your time ;P Not a waste of time at all. I just proved you are a liar:
calvinNhobbes wrote: Actually, I would consider myself a virtue ethicist. ^__^ *pat on the back*
Xpltvdeleted wrote: Mirror, Mirror wrote: and kind of like watching mules trying to mate. pointless but fun? Sad was what I was thinking, actually.
Frostflame wrote: Frogboy wrote: Um...crap. Even I skipped reading 150 of the last 200 posts since I last checked in. :(
At least Mr. Fishy is here. Yay! :)
You see the can of worms you opened. At least Mr and Missus Fishy wont go hungry... He kills the posts, Mrs. Fishy eats them as they float.
If Mr. Fishy were faithful, he would pile the dead around Mrs. Fishy's nest too impress Mrs. Fishy.
calvinNhobbes wrote: Mirror, Mirror wrote: Not a waste of time at all. I just proved you are a liar: No you didn't? I said I consider myself a virtue ethicist. I did not state I was one. You did not disprove what I consider myself. That is in fact impossible.
;P
Exestentially, you either are or are not. You consider yourself to be, but say you are not? You are either engaging in deluded double-think or an outright liar. There is no alternative interpretation.
Pick one. ^__^
Mirror, Mirror wrote: Xpltvdeleted wrote: Mirror, Mirror wrote: and kind of like watching mules trying to mate. pointless but fun? Sad was what I was thinking, actually.
** spoiler omitted ** too true
calvinNhobbes wrote: Mirror, Mirror wrote: Not a waste of time at all. I just proved you are a liar: No you didn't? I said I consider myself a virtue ethicist. I did not state I was one. You did not disprove what I consider myself. That is in fact impossible.
;P
Cut the scorpio drama out
Mirror, Mirror wrote: Exestentially, you either are or are not. I prefer a continuum, I do not think in black and white ;P
But I would have to say your analysis is very flawed, even with you cherry picking quotes out of context.
Example
me wrote: Yes, one person GIVING their life to save many is altruistic and absolutely GOOD. Taking that person life whether they want it or not is EVIL.: you wrote: No consideration is given to the universal virtue that governs this rule Atruism IS a virtue!
you wrote: Starting again with a consequential argument, the tone changes once evil is brought in. Because that is the topic we were discussing, hence where we start. Duh!
you wrote: As noted by the lack of exception stated in the post. , which as I stated a approach it from both a act and motivation. I would say more from motivation.
you wrote: Similarly, the outcome is not considered important to the ethical value. Which is consequentialism, which we both agree I am not.
you wrote: The statement is focused only on the act itself. WRONG! Is it based on the virtue of altruism as well. Suck it ;P
you wrote: Conclusion: Deontological thinking. WRONG!
Conclusion: virtue and deotological, which is exactly how I said I was approaching the discussion.
When I stated I consider myself a virtue ethicist, taht is personally. For my approach to this debate using teh RAW (which are RULES) it is nigh impposble not to utlizie deontological thinking to some extent. Wouldn't you say. I know I did.
ProfessorCirno wrote: Xpltvdeleted wrote: Civilian casualties DURING a war is something that cannot be avoided and is very regrettable; having them occur outside of the war is something that should never happen Both are evil actions.
I don't care if they're "unavoidable" and "regrettable." It's still an evil action.
That's what so many of you aren't grasping - it doesn't matter what your reasons for doing an evil action are. IT'S STILL AN EVIL ACTION. I really f&*~ing hate agreeing with ProfessorCirno. I am a sad panda.
You can be Lawful Good and still perform an evil act because you "have to". What happens after that is called role playing.
Xum wrote: Calvin... nice mirror to look at eh? I have no idea what this means
Frostflame wrote: Cut the scorpio drama out I have no idea what this means
calvinNhobbes wrote: Mirror, Mirror wrote: Exestentially, you either are or are not. I prefer a continuum, I do not think in black and white ;P
But I would have to say your analysis is very flawed, even with you cherry picking quotes out of context.
Example
me wrote: Yes, one person GIVING their life to save many is altruistic and absolutely GOOD. Taking that person life whether they want it or not is EVIL.: you wrote: No consideration is given to the universal virtue that governs this rule Atruism IS a virtue!
you wrote: Starting again with a consequential argument, the tone changes once evil is brought in. Because that is the topic we were discussing, hence where we start. Duh!
you wrote: As noted by the lack of exception stated in the post. , which as I stated a approach it from both a act and motivation. I would say more from motivation.
you wrote: Similarly, the outcome is not considered important to the ethical value. Which is consequentialism, which we both agree I am not.
you wrote: The statement is focused only on the act itself. WRONG! Is it based on the virtue of altruism as well. Suck it ;P
you wrote: Conclusion: Deontological thinking. WRONG!
Conclusion: virtue and deotological, which is exactly how I said I was approaching the discussion.
When I stated I consider myself a virtue ethicist, taht is personally. For my approach to this debate using teh RAW (which are RULES) it is nigh impposble not to utlizie deontological thinking to some extent. Wouldn't you say. I know I did. Calvin all you have been doing throught the 500+ posts is argue in black and white. Looking at the act itself and judging what is good or evil. According to you even someone who kills a furry cuddly bunny rabbit for food and then makes a nice pair of moccasins from it is evil.
@calvinNhobbes
Fine, you are drawing your conclusions from the virtue of altruism.
Merriam/Webster wrote:
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
However, when given the choice between defending many or defending few, even the altruist considers the consequences. This is why, philosophically, the altruist does not give everything they have away to those that have less. Strong virtues also can conflict, and when they do, value judgements needs to be made. So at this point, virtue ethicists tend to either default to deontological or consequential thinking.
You default to the former. No shame in that, but my original point does stand.
calvinNhobbes wrote: Once again, for everyone, I DID NOT SAY KILLING ANIMALS IS EVIL! Actually, you DID:
calvinNhobbes wrote: Agreed, good characters would not use leather, unless it was stripped from an animal that died of natural causes. Why would a good character not commit a neutral act? They would only refrain if it were an EVIL act. Thus, you concluded killing animals is evil.
So is that how you back out of a losing argument? get boxed in then say something to the effect of "LOLZ I R troll!!"
calvinNhobbes wrote: And that is a lie. I have never stated an act was good or evil without looking at intent. Mirrors attempt to show that is simply selection bias. If you remvoe ALL my statements dealign with virtue then of course it APPEARS not to be there.
BTW, this is a less than accurate statement, and you KNOW it. I picked out the statements, true. But the context was included where necessary. The fact is you may be THINKING of the consequences or virtues, but you are not ARGUING that line of reasoning. What you are arguing is deontological.
And my sample was quite extensive, covering many pages. Perhaps you have counter-quotes to post?
Xpltvdeleted wrote: So is that how you back out of a losing argument? get boxed in then say something to the effect of "LOLZ I R troll!!" And just give everybody a headache...you see why I wanted to avoid the discussion.
Mirror, Mirror wrote: Actually, you DID: Actually, I DID NOT. Read again.
Quote: Why would a good character not commit a neutral act? They would only refrain if it were an EVIL act. Thus, you concluded killing animals is evil. Because they are good NOT neutral. GOOD people refrain from NEUTRAL acts as well, if they didn't then they would be neutral. Duh! You forget there are THREE possible choices: good, neutral and evil.
They are just are not going to get an alignment shift for commiting the occasioanl neutral act.
Well, it's also kind of terrible to consider his argument lost because he's wrong about something he said. Internet message boards are funny that way. You can find one poster who's blathering, take out a few of his points because they are unreasonable, ignore his reasonable points and the points of everyone else by pretending not to see them, then declare victory. Amazing social experiment, I think.
calvinNhobbes wrote: Mirror, Mirror wrote: Fine, you are drawing your conclusions from the virtue of altruism. I guess that makes you a liar then. No, that makes me incorrect. There is a difference. I would suggest learning it. AND I am only incorrect because you added information to the argument AFTER the conclusions were made.
And MY original point was that your arguments are framed in a deondological manner, which IS correct. I also claimed that deontology and consequentialism were incompatiable ethical theories, which they are. And since you have admitted that you DO use deontological thinking in your reasoning, then my conclusion that the argument should stop, based on the fact that deontology and consequentialism are incompatiable, is valid.
I think someone wishes they hadn't forgotten their transmogrifier.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Ross, Gary, anybody, just lock this poor abused little thing.
Slight non sequiteur:
I borrowed a queue from Storyteller and did an alignment Nature and Demeanor in my last campaign. Nature is obvious. Demeanor was what you either projected to protect your true Nature or what you ASPIRED to. I allowed some leniency if a player was working towards their Demeanor in certain situations and lowered Bluff and Diplomacy DCs based on it. Not something I could catch every time, of course, but that worked out pretty well. Some people chose to have the two be the same but others ran with it. It was good fun.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Ross, Gary, anybody, just lock this poor abused little thing. But I think they are on the verge of resolution of their differences...
TriOmegaZero wrote: Ross, Gary, anybody, just lock this poor abused little thing. Agreed! Nuke and pave!
turn this thread into a sheet of glass for the sake of everything good and holy (or evil and unholy, whatever floats your boat).
How can I enjoy the show when I have to post to see everything?
Xpltvdeleted wrote: turn this thread into a sheet of glass for the sake of everything good and holy (or evil and unholy, whatever floats your boat). Floating boats is an evil act...
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Sebastian wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Ross, Gary, anybody, just lock this poor abused little thing. But I think they are on the verge of resolution of their differences... Ah ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha.
Sebastian wrote: Xpltvdeleted wrote: turn this thread into a sheet of glass for the sake of everything good and holy (or evil and unholy, whatever floats your boat). Floating boats is an evil act... I'M ON A BOAT!
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Sebastian wrote: Xpltvdeleted wrote: turn this thread into a sheet of glass for the sake of everything good and holy (or evil and unholy, whatever floats your boat). Floating boats is an evil act... I add buoyancy to my sea-going vessel. Is that evil?
Sebastian wrote: Xpltvdeleted wrote: turn this thread into a sheet of glass for the sake of everything good and holy (or evil and unholy, whatever floats your boat). Floating boats is an evil act... i LOLd IRL.
Sebastian wrote: Floating boats is an evil act... You are such a deontologist ;P
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
meatrace wrote: Sebastian wrote: Xpltvdeleted wrote: turn this thread into a sheet of glass for the sake of everything good and holy (or evil and unholy, whatever floats your boat). Floating boats is an evil act... I'M ON A BOAT! Ha HA! I'm using the SHIPPING LANES!
...it's not the same without image macros.... :'(
|
