These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Proof Max Singularity is a terrorist and is supported by terrorists
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Arrendis
TK Corp
#61 - 2017-06-20 14:56:16 UTC
Jason Galente wrote:
On a separate note..I'm actually rather fond of the fact that I know a neat little secret about Max Singularity's corporation.

But I ain't tellin'


Is it the way they all install popcorn makers on the bridge of their ships?
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#62 - 2017-06-20 17:34:26 UTC
Arrendis wrote:

He used the term atrocity. Just because I don't hold to a set of morals doesn't mean I can't recognize when others do, and when their claims—based on their own moral assertions—explicitly contradict their claims of morality. I'd be very bad at being a pedantic jerk if I wasn't capable of working within their framework when arguing against them, now wouldn't I?

Atrocity or not as an action it pursues certain goals, so if you are going with amoral stance the only thing that matters if that action achieved said goal and what consequences followed after it, so again it is always an option to make a purely pragmatic arguments devoid of morals.
Quote:
A) You conflate 'accuracy' with 'precision'. Though often used as synonyms, there is a difference. For example: 'A Rokh is a ship' is an accurate statement. It's not a terribly precise statement, though. As a result...

Yes yes, you can be precise but not accurate and precision is independent of accuracy. Accuracy is closeness to a standard of a known value in specific conditions. There is much to be said about the set of said specific conditions that will depend on the surroundings and the observer and raises a question of "one or many, many or one" but if we will go in to that we will deviate quite a bit.
Quote:
B) This is not an accurate statement.

On the contrary, it is not precise but it is accurate.
Quote:
C) Were I attempting to specify little differences from the larger category, I would instead use clearer terms that don't involve assumptions made about what the reader will infer from the term itself. In doing so, I would avoiding using terms coined specifically to be pithy little labels that make the speaker/writer seem like more of an informed authority... like 'othering'.

It is a specification of human behavior that you were making as an example, so I don't see anything wrong in using said term when it was made specifically for such use. Also coloring a term as "pithy little label" is giving it bad connotation when there is non, it's just a term.
Maximillian Triton
Doomheim
#63 - 2017-06-20 17:40:37 UTC
There's a few of you here who need to submit yourselves for cerebral reconditioning, or biomass. Whichever works best.. If the Empire is woohoo cared foe by "God" then what the **** is going on in the Bleak Lands? Did the 24th Crusade forget they had a war to fight, or are the Minmatar that much better than the Empire? So Max Singularity seeks reform of the Empire, who cares? When was the last time an Emperor was legitimately chosen?

"One can never escape the glaring light of destiny, no matter how dark the hole they crawl into" ~ Commodore Maximillian Triton
Jev North
Doomheim
#64 - 2017-06-20 17:47:11 UTC
About ten months ago?

Even though our love is cruel; even though our stars are crossed.
Arrendis
TK Corp
#65 - 2017-06-20 18:16:29 UTC
Ashlar Vellum wrote:

Atrocity or not as an action it pursues certain goals, so if you are going with amoral stance the only thing that matters if that action achieved said goal and what consequences followed after it, so again it is always an option to make a purely pragmatic arguments devoid of morals.


Transparent desperation at this point, Vellum. Whether or not I care about the morality of the action is irrelevant to pointing out the hypocrisy of standing on moral principles while ignoring the blatant contradiction in his own position.

Quote:
On the contrary, it is not precise but it is accurate.


As it's patently wrong, no, it's not accurate.

Quote:
It is a specification of human behavior that you were making as an example, so I don't see anything wrong in using said term when it was made specifically for such use. Also coloring a term as "pithy little label" is giving it bad connotation when there is non, it's just a term.


I'm sure you see it that way.
Ashlar Vellum
Esquire Armaments
#66 - 2017-06-21 16:05:06 UTC
Arrendis wrote:

Transparent desperation at this point, Vellum. Whether or not I care about the morality of the action is irrelevant to pointing out the hypocrisy of standing on moral principles while ignoring the blatant contradiction in his own position.

You are trying to find and accuse of a hidden purpose when there isn't one.

The thing about hypocrisy - it is tight to moral concepts, like for example lying aren't morally permissive or praised while hypocrisy is basically a lie about personal convictions. So why care about it at all if amorality postulates indifference to said concepts? No matter from what perspective tag of amorality is applied to your actions it simply does not fit, moral tag fits and immoral tag could fit and which one is more fitting in certain circumstances can be debated to ad nauseam probably.

Quote:
I'm sure you see it that way.

To be fair it is that way, descriptive in nature for the purpose of streamlining a concept in particular field.