3434 réponses à ce sujet

[D.Kain]

Dunstan wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Dunstan wrote...

And that answer both disturbs and angers me.
I just hope that no man ever does something to hurt you deeply. Because if I understand how you think, then you'd probably find out his address, go inside, and kill his family. Am I correct?

Nobody should hurt anyone deeply, that is already a problem. It depends on how big of damage it is. If a milionare right now pays the police so that they put me into prison because he feels like it, I would be justified to do just that to him if I get out.

@bolded - I agree that nobody should deeply hurt anybody, but that simply won't happen ever.

@the rest - It justifies you to hurt him, but not his family. Is this really debatable?

The bold part. It is the SAME as saying that people hurting others is ok, because it can't be any other way. WTF?

[D.Kain]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If I'm an uninvolved, unrelated third party, once he tries to steal the sword from he, then he has wrong me, in a way that has nothing to do with the people who wronged him. 

If he asks me for a sword, and swears to use it only against those who've actually wronged him, he might very well get one, as I find slavery repugnant and vile...

of course, if he believes he would be justified in murdering the slaver's children, everyone would be safer if I just killed him myself instead.   

Do you live in a society or do you live on your own and don't give sh*t about what happens unless it directly involves you? Go live in the woods or something then. Society's health is at stake, you will be involved by that slaver anyway just on a different level. 

And never mind where I said I'd give a slave striving for actual justice a sword if he asked for it, right? 

If he feels that the wrongs done to him justify wrongs done to anyone he randomly feels the whim to wrong, if he feels that killing the slavers' children is a way to get justice, if he feels that my possessions should be his for the taking, then he's not looking for justice, then arming him would only make things worse.  

Spare us your warped notions of "social justice". 

Bold part. NOO. If it helps him fight his cause.

[FoxHound109]

D.Kain wrote...

So is France still standing or what?

That's irrelevant. Your argument was that revolution always leads to harmony and is successful, my point was that it doesn't always apply. The French Revolution was disastrous: the power vacuum alone was an immense problem, leaving the road open for horrible corruption. France still stands because of Napoleon, not because of the revolution itself; in fact, you could argue that Napoleon saved France from the castrophy that was the French Revolution.

I don't buy this argument from you when you have been so adamant the past few pages in debating that Morinth is the way she is for a myriad of reasons that were not her fault (her environment, etc.). You can't support that point of view and then ask if France is still standing. Meaning: in Morinth's moral defense you are drowing yourself in detail but in the case of the moral and historical implications of the French Revolution you are making a blanket statement. Your two views here are not compatible.

[Killjoy Cutter]

D.Kain wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

What you've been saying is that it's OK for anyone who ever gets **** to randomly give **** to everyone else around them, lashing out in a blind act of misdirected retaliation. 

Which WILL always lead to harmony in the end, because nobody would want to endure it. Yes.

That's how every revolution worked.

No, it just leads to more and more killing and injustice and strife, as everyone wronged takes it out on everyone around them.  It's a recipe for chaos, not justice. 

And it's not how revolutions that worked happen.  It's how failed revolutions like French Revolution work, spiraling ever downward in chaos and drenched in an endless torrent of innocent blood. 

Of course a person can hurt only those that are related to his cause in a way. WOW, you think that people can hurt COMPLETELY random people? For Morinth every person was for her power. For slave it's the children of the slaver not the children of a random person in the street, if it is you it is because of your sword, not because it is random. Lead the chain and deal with the problem. 

No, I don't think that.  Are you that dense that you can get such a load of nonsense out of what I've written, or are you just trolling, or what? 


And so what if every rapemurder was "power" for Morinth, that doesn't make it right, that doesn't justify it.  She's still entirely wrong to rapemurder people like Nef, who we know from the game she is drawn to take.  The choice is still hers, and the guilt is still hers. 


And that's the point, it's my damn sword, and the slave would be wrong to steal it.


There is no chain, there is no transfer of guilt, there's just what you do, and your responsiblity for it. 


Spare us the hippy-dippy "everything would be solved by love" crap, and the "it's not my fault I had a bad childhood" crap. 

[D.Kain]

FoxHound109 wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

So is France still standing or what?

That's irrelevant. Your argument was that revolution always leads to harmony and is successful, my point was that it doesn't always apply. The French Revolution was disastrous: the power vacuum alone was an immense problem, leaving the road open for horrible corruption. France still stands because of Napoleon, not because of the revolution itself; in fact, you could argue that Napoleon saved France from the castrophy that was the French Revolution.

I don't buy this argument from you when you have been so adamant the past few pages in debating that Morinth is the way she is for a myriad of reasons that were not her fault (her environment, etc.). You can't support that point of view and then ask if France is still standing. Meaning: in Morinth's moral defense you are drowing yourself in detail but in the case of the moral and historical implications of the French Revolution you are making a blanket statement. Your two views here are not compatible.

My argument was not derictly about revolution. We can drop it. 
Many revolutions do indeed happen in chaos, when it shouldn't be that way. 

[D.Kain]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Spare us the hippy-dippy "everything would be solved by love" crap, and the "it's not my fault I had a bad childhood" crap. 

Ok, I'll just stop there. I get it, treating people right is impossible, love is not going to help anyone, having people have a bad childhood is ok, because it shouldn't have any consiquences. Good to know.

[Mr.Pink]

I think it would be rather pointless to have repercussions in ME3 if you saved Morinth. Your off to save the galaxy from the Reapers, and unite races. I think having a single, lone Asari that you chose to save having an impact on that would be both stupid, and pointless.

[D.Kain]

jreezy wrote...

D.Kain wrote...
If he feels that the wrongs done to him justify wrongs done to anyone he randomly feels the whim to wrong, if he feels that killing the slavers' children is a way to get justice, if he feels that my possessions should be his for the taking, then he's not looking for justice, then arming him would only make things worse.  

Bold part. NOO. If it helps him fight his cause.


You specifically respond to things but your responses make me think you have no clue what things mean.

Maybe I miss some points because of my english, if that's what you mean.

[FoxHound109]

Dr. Kain: I am curious here, so let's bring this closer to home. How would you feel if instead of Morinth being what she is that she was a human female who was HIV+ and aware of her status. Furthermore, lets add here the two main points that make Morinth "dangerous" if you will: every time she infects someone with HIV she becomes more and more addicted to doing so and the people who are involved in sexual acts with her actually don't know what HIV is because it's been kept well hidden from the general public.

How do you feel about that scenario?

Modifié par FoxHound109, 04 octobre 2011 - 07:10 .

[D.Kain]

Dunstan wrote...

I'm not saying that hurting people is ok, I'm saying that there will always be people who hurt others and there is no way of knowing who and where they all are. Because until they reveal themselves by commiting a crime, to everyone else in the world they're just normal people. Am I making sense?

Yes, but do you understand that it happens because they can get away with it? Because people think that they have no right to fight back? There are people that they have wronged directly, that person is desperate and can't fight back, nobody cares about the person because it's not their business, and when that person hurts someone just to survive he get's put down. 

[D.Kain]

FoxHound109 wrote...

Dr. Kain: I am curious here, so let's bring this closer to home. How would you feel if instead of Morinth being what she is that she was a human female who was HIV+ and aware of her status. Furthermore, lets add here the two main points that make Morinth "dangerous" if you will: every time she infects someone with HIV she becomes more and more addicted to doing so and the people who are involved in sexual acts with her actually don't know what HIV is because it's been kept well hidden from the general public.

How do you feel about that scenario?

It changes nothing if this woman is in the same situation as Morinth. Because goverment doesn't want to reveal her existance to people for political reasons, nobody knows what she is. And goverment just want to terminate her, her fighting the goverment back involves getting power.

[D.Kain]

jreezy wrote...


Then you should be careful. Why bold parts of a sentence to respond to when you have no idea what it means?

I mean, I understood SOMETHING, I just though something else probably. 

Modifié par D.Kain, 04 octobre 2011 - 07:15 .

[D.Kain]

Dunstan wrote...

I'm going out for a friends 19th birthday, I'll drop by tommorrow

Have fun. :happy:

[D.Kain]

jreezy wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

FoxHound109 wrote...

Dr. Kain: I am curious here, so let's bring this closer to home. How would you feel if instead of Morinth being what she is that she was a human female who was HIV+ and aware of her status. Furthermore, lets add here the two main points that make Morinth "dangerous" if you will: every time she infects someone with HIV she becomes more and more addicted to doing so and the people who are involved in sexual acts with her actually don't know what HIV is because it's been kept well hidden from the general public.

How do you feel about that scenario?

It changes nothing if this woman is in the same situation as Morinth. Because goverment doesn't want to reveal her existance to people for political reasons, nobody knows what she is. And goverment just want to terminate her, her fighting the goverment back involves getting power.

Wrong. Someone needs to give you a Mass Effect 2 test or something to put things in perspective for you.

OR put her into seclusion, that sh thinks is worse than death.... yes.

[Killjoy Cutter]

D.Kain wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If I'm an uninvolved, unrelated third party, once he tries to steal the sword from he, then he has wrong me, in a way that has nothing to do with the people who wronged him. 

If he asks me for a sword, and swears to use it only against those who've actually wronged him, he might very well get one, as I find slavery repugnant and vile...

of course, if he believes he would be justified in murdering the slaver's children, everyone would be safer if I just killed him myself instead.   

Do you live in a society or do you live on your own and don't give sh*t about what happens unless it directly involves you? Go live in the woods or something then. Society's health is at stake, you will be involved by that slaver anyway just on a different level. 

And never mind where I said I'd give a slave striving for actual justice a sword if he asked for it, right? 

If he feels that the wrongs done to him justify wrongs done to anyone he randomly feels the whim to wrong, if he feels that killing the slavers' children is a way to get justice, if he feels that my possessions should be his for the taking, then he's not looking for justice, then arming him would only make things worse.  

Spare us your warped notions of "social justice". 

Bold part. NOO. If it helps him fight his cause.

He is not more important, and his cause is not more important, than the random people he hurts to "help his cause".  

And yes, they're random.  If they're not directly involved, if they're not in some waylinked to the wrongs being done, then they're random.  If they're related by "accident of birth", then they're still innocent, just not so random.

[D.Kain]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

He is not more important, and his cause is not more important, than the random people he hurts to "help his cause".  

And yes, they're random.  If they're not directly involved, if they're not in some waylinked to the wrongs being done, then they're random.  If they're related by "accident of birth", then they're still innocent, just not so random.

But don't you think that by dealing with a slaver he helps everybody in the future?

Well, random but not completely, say a person who wouldn't have a sword wouldn't be his target. But then again, WHO would actually help Morinth as you say give your sword?

Modifié par D.Kain, 04 octobre 2011 - 07:26 .

[FoxHound109]

D.Kain wrote...

It changes nothing if this woman is in the same situation as Morinth. Because goverment doesn't want to reveal her existance to people for political reasons, nobody knows what she is. And goverment just want to terminate her, her fighting the goverment back involves getting power.

That's not really true. The government doesn't want to terminate her, it wants to contain the disease. You don't think that's entirely different? 

[Killjoy Cutter]

D.Kain wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Spare us the hippy-dippy "everything would be solved by love" crap, and the "it's not my fault I had a bad childhood" crap. 

Ok, I'll just stop there. I get it, treating people right is impossible, love is not going to help anyone, having people have a bad childhood is ok, because it shouldn't have any consiquences. Good to know.

No, treating people right is not impossible. 

The point is that not treating random uninvolved people right is not excused by someone else not treating you right. 

If someone had a bad childhood, they should direct their efforts for justice and recompense towards those that caused their childhood to not be right.  Not against anyone else. 

Your thinking leads to someone who was molested by a priest blowing up a cathedral packed for mass.  If the victim finds no other means of obtaining justice, then his retribution should be directed towards the priest, or those who directly enabled the priest, not a building full of random victims who had nothing to do with it.   All the latter does is spread the original victim's suffering to hundreds of other people who had nothing to do with it.

And if they follow your way of thinking, then the survivors and the relatives and friends of the victims now do what?  Shoot up a mall to kill the bomber's friends or siblings?  Spread the suffering even more? 

And so on?  When does the suffering and killing and pain and loss end, if everyone keeps lashing out against the world, against random strangers or people involved by accidents of circumstance, when they've been hurt by someone? 

[D.Kain]

FoxHound109 wrote...

D.Kain wrote...

It changes nothing if this woman is in the same situation as Morinth. Because goverment doesn't want to reveal her existance to people for political reasons, nobody knows what she is. And goverment just want to terminate her, her fighting the goverment back involves getting power.

That's not really true. The government doesn't want to terminate her, it wants to contain the disease. You don't think that's entirely different? 

Well you know what Morinth thinks about her contaiment. The HIV anology? No I don't think it is entirely different.

[D.Kain]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Your thinking leads to someone who was molested by a priest blowing up a cathedral packed for mass.  If the victim finds no other means of obtaining justice, then his retribution should be directed towards the priest, or those who directly enabled the priest, not a building full of random victims who had nothing to do with it.   All the latter does is spread the original victim's suffering to hundreds of other people who had nothing to do with it.

And if they follow your way of thinking, then the survivors and the relatives and friends of the victims now do what?  Shoot up a mall to kill the bomber's friends or siblings?  Spread the suffering even more? 

And so on?  When does the suffering and killing and pain and loss end, if everyone keeps lashing out against the world, against random strangers or people involved by accidents of circumstance, when they've been hurt by someone? 

 But what if the only chance to get at the priest is blowing up the whole cathedral at specific time, and there is just NO other way to have the priest be responsible? Everybody, should ask the question of what happened, and why it did. Always think before you act. The person himself should invastigate the priest and see if somebody helf a gun at priests head when he was doing what he did, and act only if it is the selfishness of the priest alone.

Modifié par D.Kain, 04 octobre 2011 - 07:37 .