These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

When you see the God of Amarr
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#61 - 2012-10-26 21:05:01 UTC
I've had to clip some parts out of this post, sir. I apologize. You have, however, deeply offended. I'm sorry for my over-sensitivity.

Roca Dracor wrote:
Hanging from the cobwebs in your mind, it does look like a long, long way to fall.


Do you regularly pepper your philosophy with insults for those you disagree with? Or, that's the emotion part. I understand.

Roca Dracor wrote:
I choose a fresh approach, one not so tied to failed and outdated ideologies. One that you will likely never see as more than a poorly rationalized and errant vision of free will.. If you believe in such a concept at all. I do not believe you can ever conceptualize right for me, no..


This is the height of ignorance, from many directions. These failed and outdated methodologies are what allow you to say these things while being connected by the spinal column to a multi-megatonned-warship, sailing amongst the stars. I don't believe that rationality or logic are good things in-and-of-themselves, I believe that they are good things because they work.

Consistently.

Every time.

They aren't going to tell you whether you should open fire or not, but they will tell you exactly what opening fire will result in.

Roca Dracor wrote:
Whether you would participate in physically dragging anyone anywhere I doubt, your false perception of compassion would shy from such a thing. But you would doubtless sit in judgement of an individuals right to decide their own fate, if you disagreed with that fate, even if it harmed none outside your perception of the right of things.


Sir, I am incensed. Do you think me stupid? I am insulted on many levels.

Firstly, by the fact that you think my saying "compassion ought dictate action" means "get someone else to drag the poor individual, kicking and screaming, instead of myself." Do you think me so cowardly, so squeamish, as to not have the courage of my own convictions?

Secondly, that you think me so imperious as to sit in judgement of someone. The height of arrogance! That you pretend to know me so well, sir - keep your suppositions of me to yourself!

Thirdly, that you would think I equivocate "show compassion" with "obliterate someone elses' choice." Did you not read what I wrote about the situation you postulated? I said, quite clearly, that if there were a biological factor involved, that it should be corrected. At this point the decision is theirs to make. Biological suicidal depression is very different from a conviction to die, and those who suffer from it are generally open to the help. If there were no biological aberration involved and the individual came to the decision by other means, I would instead promise to make a prayer that they are well received by their ancestors.

I'm not sure what to say, sir. I simply haven't the emotional fortitude to continue this discussion if it proceeds like this.
Roga Dracor
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#62 - 2012-10-26 21:13:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Roga Dracor
You, sir, play a word game that has no foundation in logic and once again is subjective, not objective. It is your rationale (notice the e?) to make your argument appear to have a humanist face to the masses. One that assumes logic to be superior to emotions, to which compassion and empathy belong. Logic has nothing to do with either, by the way. You rationalized this position before you brought it up. Unless you think yourself mistaken? Logical doesn't mean true, either..

One must rationalize a course of action before one embarks on it. Do you normally do things which you don't believe in? Unless it is not premeditated, and thus, purely motivated by emotion and unreasoned. In other words an action that is contrary to your belief system. Very few crimes commited are. Not after, unless the individual sees the action, in afterthought, as an error. You dangle legal jargon as a lawyer might in a court of law, and your position is clear.

You, sir, say very little with an abundance of rhetoric added to impress the chattle. You should have been a politician.. Your talents are wasted as a mere starship pilot.

Rational as a word is an adopted belief used to justify some action. It is not an empirical, it is a belief..

Do you understand the difference? As the saying goes around here, prove it.. Prove an empirical, consistant rational approach for all of humanity.. Ah yes, you have one, and it has been unilaterally rejected by the masses, so much for your empirically rational thought process. It is simply your belief. So much for the superiority of toasters.

Scherezad, you indignance is unconvincing, and in the tag team with your toaster friend, I attribute it little more than a dramatic posturing to elicit sympathy. Rational in regards to anything is based upon belief, look it up...

Sansha assumed the rational approach to securing his vision of Utopia was to create True Slaves to enforce the directives of his Nation upon the populace. Now if as you both contend, every rational decision is the right, true and proper way of it, why is Nation not in control of the cluster today? Being the epitomy of rationality that you both seem to express as the proper way of things, not capable of error or ambiguity, your hypothesis seems to be in error? But, it remains rational, because you believe it, yes?

Hmm, the rational approach to cooking is best achieved using fire. Though, microwaves work well, too.. Sorry, still can't use it in a sentence proving it an empirical.. Guess I am too uneducated... You win.. Can you sense the sarcasm here?

It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then, and it's a poor sort of memory that only works backward.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#63 - 2012-10-26 21:22:56 UTC
Actually my argument is entirely based in logic.

You, however, have proven yourself to not be worth my time, to be quite honest.

What evidence can you offer someone who believes that evidence itself is not worthy of their consideration?
von Khan
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#64 - 2012-10-27 00:36:43 UTC  |  Edited by: von Khan
This is an interesting monologue, the true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it.

I think we all can agree that It is not clear that either the categories "given" to us by our senses, or those abstracted for us by the processes of scientific investigation, constitute the most "real" or even the most "useful" modes of apprehending the fundamental nature of being or experience.

The categories offered by The Faith play that role. Such systems of apprehension present the world as a place of constant moral striving, conducted against a background of interplay between the "divine forces" of order and chaos.

  • "Order" is the natural category of all those phenomena whose manifestations and transformations are currently predictable.
  • "Chaos" is the natural category of "potential" - the potential that emerges whenever an error in prediction occurs.

    • The capacity for creative exploration embodied in The Faith serves as the mediator between these fundamental constituent elements of experience. Voluntary or involuntary failure to engage in such exploration produces a chain of causally interrelated events whose inevitable endpoint is adoption of a rigid, ideology-predicated, totalitarian identity, and violent suppression of the eternally threatening other.

    In simpler words:
    "In the beginning all things were as one.
    God parted them and breathed life into his creation
    Divided the parts and gave each its place
    And unto each, bestowed purpose"
    - The Scriptures, Book I 1:4

    von Khan