Hello Wee
Sorry for the late answer, but the reason for it is somehow fitting: was visiting Münster on Saturday where the peacetreaty that ended the 30years war was signed.
WeeAshley wrote:
I am fully aware that 99% of people reading this post won't give a sh*t.
|
To quote Seneca: majority errs (he just forget to add, that the minorities do too
)
WeeAshley wrote:
In the spirit of lofty, impractical, philosophical debate I am going to object to almost every definition you put on "good" or "bad". |
Well, indeed it´s hard to get to a common definition of moral values, but that´s why I didn´t define good (a definition in the classical sense is a statement about what a thing really IS), but merly was saying how i would USE it in the following sentences. I am not delving into the realm of the real, I try to stay at the discoursive level here.
WeeAshley wrote:
If we were talking about a real-world government that was saying x and doing y then I might be more lenient with my objections to your moral absolutes
|
I tried to make clear, that I didn´t intent to go into the moral realm but tried to stick to the discourse used here in the forums in their discussions by the players and to the pragmatical consequences of it.
My point was not, that contradiction is bad in the moral sense of the word, but bad in the sense of giving you undesireable and impractical outcome.
In this special case, the discourse and argumentation used by H? for justifying the last war can be used by their present enemies. So in a sense they are arming their enemies, what´s not morally bad, but very impractical and undesireable.
Additionally, this behaviour can be seen by others (so we are just on the discoursive level again, that is, just in the analysis of what is being posted here) as being hypocrisy, what can lead to additional enmity in others, which again can lead to more enimies. And having more enimies is not bad in a moral sense, but impractical and undesireable (at least as far as we take the announcements here of H? for real that they don´t want to fight).
You said yourself, that usually allies stick together, funnily in this war there were breakings of Alliances on both sides. So you, even more then me, have to wonder, how the current mess can have occured, when you yourself proclaim it to not be the norm... Well, not you, as you said you are not interested in the meta-level behind it (whats totally consistent), but others here try to play this game.
WeeAshley wrote:
But assuming that these say-one-do-another events are provable (which is a big assumption) |
Well, yes and no, of course there are problems involved (though with the ammounts of spies around they are not that high), but that´s why I try to stick to the discoursive level that´s around here in the forums. This say-one-do-another can be seen in the statements of involved persons, and as statements about these people. That´s probably why some neutral but concerned guys like Vanerin or me were primaly asking questions considered the stance of H? to NC and not throwing around accusations...
WeeAshley wrote:
Do I experience cognitive dissonance because of this? Hell no, I experience the feeling of WIN! :) |
Indeed, and even if you would experience some dissonance because of it, it would fade away quite soon, as humans are extremly efficient in displacing those cognitive dissonances. But the level here is the pragmatic one, H? claims to be not happy about the war, so the dissonance is between what you want and what you get, and that dissoance is more stingy...
WeeAshley wrote:
You absolutely can. Look - over there - it is being done, therefore it can be done. |
No, because as you said yourself, logic applies here too. If you do argumentation, then it´s either because you want to convince, or because you just want to persuade polemically. If your argumentation is faulty [and in the strict sense not an argument anymore], you probably won´t convince many. If convincing is your aim, then bad arguments won´t lead you there, so that´s why I was throwing around critical questions. They are usually good occasions to look into your own assumptions and arguments to make them more accurate... I can understand, that you usually won´t lend an ear to the arguments of your enimies, but coming from a neutral side, it´s easier. Well, at least in my opinion and experience...
WeeAshley wrote:
I disagree that game-allowable actions can be evaluated in the moral spectrum. |
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but I am dealing partly with the discourse that is used to do just this. And I am trying to drag it more to the pragmatical side. For many moral "arguments" much better pragmatic ones can be found... Where I have given away my personal moral judgements, it was just to show that I am not onesidedly leaning to one of the sides involved, otherwise I donn´t think I have told others what would be morally right, I am just doing dialectics with what is called good/justified by some.
I mean, it´s like reading a interreligious dialogue. You don´t have to be a member of any of those involved, but you can still delve into the dialogue and try to follow the arguments and try to see where the problems lie.
WeeAshley wrote:
contradiction is a moral absolute that can be applied to video games." |
My point was merly, that contradiction in your argumentations won´t convince, may arm your enemies with arguments that may convince others and that other players very well may make moral judgements about you on this ground, wich may again lead to more enmities or even more enemies in war. And as H? said they didn´t want war, having even more enemies in a war against you is bad, on the pragmatic level.
I mean, it´s like saying going into a porcelain shop and smashing everything is bad. I woulnd´t say it because it´s immoral to destroy others belongings, but because it can hurt you and get you in prison. That is not in itself a problem (some might enjoy getting cuts, others may need a shelter for the coming winter, etc.), but a problem if you like your health and freedom...
Of course in my personal stance I am quite against war, but mainly for aesthetic reasons, I just don´t like and enjoy it, with all the work involved, especially when timing is needed etc. . But I don´t see where this leaped too much into what I am trying to do here with my argumentation...
Edit for demessing the quotes and one clarification
Edited by Aristeas - 11 Nov 2013 at 16:56