These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Philosopher's Wager, and other shenanigans.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#61 - 2015-06-15 11:28:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra
Mr. Mokk,

I don't think you're in a position to remind any members of [SFRIM] (or any Amarr) of such and much less to tell us what to do and what not to: As a supporter and member of a criminal organization you lack the authority to do so.

Friendly regards,
Nicoletta Mithra
Sinjin Mokk
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#62 - 2015-06-15 11:37:38 UTC
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Mr. Mokk,

I don't think you're in a position to remind any members of [SFRIM] (or any Amarr) of such and much less to tell us what to do and what not to: As a supporter and member of a criminal organization you lack the authority to do so.

Friendly regards,
Nicoletta Mithra



My dearest Lady,

I merely said I would "like to remind." I trust you will carry the conversation with these filth to its best conclusion.

Given current events between the Empire and CONCORD, perhaps my associates aren't quite as "criminal" as they used to be?

Just a thought...

"Angels live, they never die, Apart from us, behind the sky. They're fading souls who've turned to ice, So ashen white in paradise."
Valerie Valate
Church of The Crimson Saviour
#63 - 2015-06-15 13:51:01 UTC
Sinjin Mokk wrote:
You do not debate with these people. You do not hold polite conversation with them in the hopes of redemption. You certainly do not need to defend your faith to the likes of them. All you need do is place the barrel of a hand burner to the back of their head and squeeze the trigger.


Well, that's just rude.

At least we don't cheat at billiards. Angel.

Doctor V. Valate, Professor of Archaeology at Kaztropolis Imperial University.
Kalaratiri
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#64 - 2015-06-15 14:18:47 UTC
Sinjin Mokk wrote:
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Mr. Mokk,

I don't think you're in a position to remind any members of [SFRIM] (or any Amarr) of such and much less to tell us what to do and what not to: As a supporter and member of a criminal organization you lack the authority to do so.

Friendly regards,
Nicoletta Mithra



My dearest Lady,

I merely said I would "like to remind." I trust you will carry the conversation with these filth to its best conclusion.

Given current events between the Empire and CONCORD, perhaps my associates aren't quite as "criminal" as they used to be?

Just a thought...



No, I'm pretty sure we're still criminals.

Just like you!

She's mad but she's magic, there's no lie in her fire.

This is possibly one of the worst threads in the history of these forums.  - CCP Falcon

I don't remember when last time you said something that wasn't either dumb or absurd. - Diana Kim
Kithrus
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#65 - 2015-06-15 14:32:59 UTC
Well I find the wager a good way to prime someone for introduction into the faith it falls by the wayside once we get into the grit of faith and theology.

If you want to argue the main point of the wager the opposition brought up to this point both professional and otherwise are looking at the question far to narrowly and thus loses contrast. Points about how salvation or more importantly what is or what it means to people is moot. Till you know what the context a heaven or paradise is and more importantly as an immortal Incorporal being affects you why bring it up? Either there is paradise or there isn't.

Furthermore you have to take into consideration the benevolence of God, if He is then regardless to your choice of faith is also moot. The attempt to live a good life and make the universe a better place arguably is much more pleasing to a deity then thousand lukewarm 'faithful'.

So I'd ask you stop trying to dicesect the premise by splitting hairs and return to the basic question.

Do you want to wager paradise or not? No I don't care if you don't know what that is no I don't know either. This is why it's called a leap of faith, you believe salvation is there or you don't.

Darkness is more then absence of light, it is ignorance and corruption. I will be the Bulwark from such things that you may live in the light. Pray so my arms do not grow weary and my footing remain sure.

If you are brave, join me in the dark.
Daaaain
Innocent Friend
Pandemic Horde
#66 - 2015-06-17 03:43:57 UTC
THE END
Samira Kernher
Cail Avetatu
#67 - 2015-06-17 03:53:22 UTC
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Mr. Mokk,

I don't think you're in a position to remind any members of [SFRIM] (or any Amarr) of such and much less to tell us what to do and what not to: As a supporter and member of a criminal organization you lack the authority to do so.

Friendly regards,
Nicoletta Mithra


He makes a good point, though.
Lord Kailethre
Tengoo Uninstallation Service
#68 - 2015-06-17 11:41:59 UTC
Samira Kernher wrote:
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Mr. Mokk,

I don't think you're in a position to remind any members of [SFRIM] (or any Amarr) of such and much less to tell us what to do and what not to: As a supporter and member of a criminal organization you lack the authority to do so.

Friendly regards,
Nicoletta Mithra


He makes a good point, though.



In my defence I'm not debating, I'm making silly posts. Because it's fun.
All heretics will eventually get their just deserts.
Makkal Hanaya
Revenent Defence Corperation
#69 - 2015-06-17 12:40:30 UTC
Valerie, I don't understand a word in that original upload, but you should know gambling is a sin.

This 'philosopher's wager' thing sounds very suspect.

Render unto Khanid the things which are Khanid's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Anslo
Scope Works
#70 - 2015-06-17 14:27:19 UTC
Ten Facets, there's a name I ain't seen in a while.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#71 - 2015-06-17 22:22:57 UTC
Samira Kernher wrote:
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Mr. Mokk,

I don't think you're in a position to remind any members of [SFRIM] (or any Amarr) of such and much less to tell us what to do and what not to: As a supporter and member of a criminal organization you lack the authority to do so.

Friendly regards,
Nicoletta Mithra


He makes a good point, though.

Does he, now?
Maybe you can elaborate on where he makes a good point exactly?

The part where he suggest that a message should rather be weighed by the messanger than it's content?
Or where he ignores that this is a public debate and that the arguments put forth won't go away by killing the messanger?
Where he thus ignores that here are more kinds of people to be considered than just the heretics and the faithful?
Or where he apparently classes "Church of the Crimson Saivor, Hoi Andrapodistai, Sani Sabik in general..." as "Bloodraiders" and thus seems to mistake genus for species and species for genus?

I'm very keen to learn why you think it reasonable to follow a criminal in an argument: An argument that itself implies that we should disregard or ignore it.
Samira Kernher
Cail Avetatu
#72 - 2015-06-17 22:43:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Samira Kernher
The point is that by engaging in debate with them you are indirectly acknowledging their arguments as worth consideration and giving them a reason to publicize them. Some things should be disregarded and ignored, because they are not worth addressing.

Respectfully, I would suggest that you save the arguments for the people who actually desire to listen rather than the ones who refuse to.
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#73 - 2015-06-18 00:24:07 UTC
Ah, so you, too, commit to the fallacious idea that the only people listening here are heretics.

Also, whether an argument is worth engaging or not really shouldn't depend on who brings it forth. All arguments should be considered on their own merits, not on who puts them forth. Whether they are worth to be adressed any further can only be determined by examining them in the light of reason:

Else one would put the darkness of ignorance before the light of reason. And God endowed mankind with reason to use it to spread the light, instead of succumbing to the darkness of ignorance.
Jennifer Starfall
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#74 - 2015-06-18 00:31:43 UTC
Ms. Mithra,

I have to agree with Ms. Kernher. By engaging in debate with heretics, you give them validation, by putting them on equal, intellectual footing with you. You are also giving them attention. Attention that even you once said that they don't deserve.

Is this really a worthy debate that furthers God's Will, or are you just indulging in your personal vice of intellectual debate?

Jennifer Starfall

Fifth Seyllin Conference
Samira Kernher
Cail Avetatu
#75 - 2015-06-18 00:36:10 UTC
It does depend on who brings it forth, Ms. Mithra. You do not drink water from a poisoned well.
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#76 - 2015-06-18 01:10:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra
I can only reiterate myself in the first point: It's fallacious to assume that all the people reading in a public forum are heretics or those that are already convinced of the Amarr worldview - and none of them is of a third variety.

Furthermore, while paying attention to any idea or argument put forth by a heretic might translate to giving some attention to a heretic, it doesn't do so qua him being a heretic. Also, I'd maintain that there's a difference between paying attention to arguments and people. And that means that killing a heretic won't make the argument vanish, once it's out in the public. And much less ignoring it. If there is a heretic argument out there, a very good way of making it vanish is to show that it's fallacious.

The attention heretics don't deserve is which is given if a heretic posts in public, mustache-twirling, about his evil deeds. Clamoring about how evil they are will help nothing there and that kind of attention they don't deserve and is leading no where:
But it's not like going out and hunting them down to bring them to justice isn't a form of attention as well. It very much is a form of attention and many heretics are proud of getting even this form of attention and feel vindicated by it. Yet, it's not wrong to bring someone to justice. Paying no attention to heretics or heresy at all is foolish. The same goes for heretic arguments.

Now, if anyone is able to show me how to discern without fail whether an argument put forth by a heretic is an heretic argument (and thus false), without engaging with it intellectually and through the use of reason, then I'll happily adopt that method: Given that it is a way by which that can be shown to others as well. Until then, I remain on the standpoint that any argument needs to be weighed in the light of reason.
And that's not putting heretics on an equal footing at all. Because it's not saying that their arguments or ideas are right or valid. All it is means is that any argument needs to be weighed according to it's own merits and through this you will see where the person holding on to it stands intellectually and whether it's an heretic argument: Not prior to it.

Else, if you dismiss all arguments given by heretics, because it's put forth by a heretic, the heretic will easily get you into trouble by putting forth your own arguments and you will end up with nothing left.

It's mistaking ignorance for faith to handle such a situation like this.
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#77 - 2015-06-18 01:16:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra
Samira Kernher wrote:
It does depend on who brings it forth, Ms. Mithra. You do not drink water from a poisoned well.

Just that arguments brought forth by a heretic are not like water from a poisoned well at all: Because all water in a poisoned well is poisonous, but a heretic is very well able to bring forth any good and orthodox argument an orthodox Amarr theologian can bring forth.

As such, you'd be foreced to abandon all good and orthodox arguments as soon as a heretic puts them forth and you'd be left with nothing: Unless you'd claim that the same arguments are to be dismissed or accepted depending on who brings them forth. But that would be abandoning the light of reason that God put into us for guidance.
Anyanka Funk
Doomheim
#78 - 2015-06-18 03:15:39 UTC
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Samira Kernher wrote:
It does depend on who brings it forth, Ms. Mithra. You do not drink water from a poisoned well.

Just that arguments brought forth by a heretic are not like water from a poisoned well at all: Because all water in a poisoned well is poisonous, but a heretic is very well able to bring forth any good and orthodox argument an orthodox Amarr theologian can bring forth.

As such, you'd be foreced to abandon all good and orthodox arguments as soon as a heretic puts them forth and you'd be left with nothing: Unless you'd claim that the same arguments are to be dismissed or accepted depending on who brings them forth. But that would be abandoning the light of reason that God put into us for guidance.


Preach!
Lyn Farel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#79 - 2015-06-18 08:07:59 UTC
Jennifer Starfall wrote:
or are you just indulging in your personal vice of intellectual debate?


Uh... Okay...
Lord Kailethre
Tengoo Uninstallation Service
#80 - 2015-06-18 08:23:15 UTC
Lyn Farel wrote:
Jennifer Starfall wrote:
or are you just indulging in your personal vice of intellectual debate?


Uh... Okay...


It's a vice now, you sinner!
Repent for your intellect!