374 réponses à ce sujet

[Gabey5]

Farbautisonn wrote...

Gabey5 wrote...

Renegades are mad because they killed a bunch of people and they miss out on cool cameos.

-wat?

me2 had cameos for paragons and renegades did not get that

[Hunter of Legends]

QuarkZ26 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

QuarkZ26 wrote...
Mother Theresa. 'nuff said.

-So you say...

Yes, there is  a reason I left Theresa off the list...

I'm sure that if I google enough i'll find critics about MLK and Ghandi as well... I won't even put Jesus in the conversation.

Of course, but I didn't leave Theresa out because of religion.

She wasn't a true altruist.

[Homebound]

renegades are all about getting what they want, paragons are about making sure everyone's happy.

lets just leave it at that.

[Hunter of Legends]

Hellbound555 wrote...

renegades are all about getting what they want, paragons are about making sure everyone's happy.

lets just leave it at that.

Paragons are diplomats.

Renegades are ruthless.

That's the lacionic version.

[Farbautisonn]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Social class and money are both viewpoints one can escape; especially if materialism isn't a key factor in your life.

Its usually easier for the "haves" to ignore materialism, than the "have nots". If putting food on the table every day  for your children is an issue for you, then moralities and ethics do have a tendency to be.. jnsignificant.

[SnakeSNMF]

Considering that Renegades share their few ****ing retarded choices, I hope they blow up fair as well.

[QuarkZ26]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Of course, but I didn't leave Theresa out because of religion.

She wasn't a true altruist.

Well i guess it depends what you call altruism, because in the real sense of the term, neither Ghandi not MLK were altruists, they were fighting for an ideal, they weren't just nice to people for the sake of it...

Altruism: The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.

Ghandi was fighting for Indians and MLK for the blacks (although I'm not american so i might be mistaken)
The fact that they were peaceful people doesn't automatically make them altruists.

[Homebound]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Hellbound555 wrote...

renegades are all about getting what they want, paragons are about making sure everyone's happy.

lets just leave it at that.

Paragons are diplomats.

Renegades are ruthless.

That's the lacionic version.

Renegade argument is usually: "You idiot, why did you do that? Now we'll never get what we want!"
Paragon argument is usually: "You idiot, why did you do that? Now we have more problems than we started with!"

[Hunter of Legends]

Farbautisonn wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Social class and money are both viewpoints one can escape; especially if materialism isn't a key factor in your life.

Its usually easier for the "haves" to ignore materialism, than the "have nots". If putting food on the table every day  for your children is an issue for you, then moralities and ethics do have a tendency to be.. jnsignificant.

I would not describe my current situation as a "have" although I am an easily please man...take that for what you will.

Materialism isn't a problem and I can objectively design a morality without subjecting(haha) myself to it.

Yes, horrible puns

[Farbautisonn]

Hunter of Legends wrote...
Paragons are diplomats.

Renegades are ruthless.

That's the lacionic version.

I strongly disagree and I do not at all believe your use of the term "laconic" here is correct.

A paragon (do gooder) can be incredibly undiplomatic in a culturally imperialistic fashion, where the do gooder assumes to have a pattent on the truth and the definition of good. This to such an extent that anyone and everyone around him/her is offended.

Renegades are not ruthless. Merely pragmatic.

Laconic wit usually implies extreme accuracy and the proper application of terms to minimize the flow of words.

[Hunter of Legends]

QuarkZ26 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Of course, but I didn't leave Theresa out because of religion.

She wasn't a true altruist.

Well i guess it depends what you call altruism, because in the real sense of the term, neither Ghandi not MLK were altruists, they were fighting for an ideal, they weren't just nice to people for the sake of it...

Altruism: The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.

Ghandi was fighting for Indians and MLK for the blacks (although I'm not american so i might be mistaken)
The fact that they were peaceful people doesn't automatically make them altruists.

THey were fighting for a better future for all people; helping that group just happened to be one way to do it.

[Hunter of Legends]

Farbautisonn wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...
Paragons are diplomats.

Renegades are ruthless.

That's the lacionic version.

I strongly disagree and I do not at all believe your use of the term "laconic" here is correct.

A paragon (do gooder) can be incredibly undiplomatic in a culturally imperialistic fashion, where the do gooder assumes to have a pattent on the truth and the definition of good. This to such an extent that anyone and everyone around him/her is offended.

Renegades are not ruthless. Merely pragmatic.

Laconic wit usually implies extreme accuracy and the proper application of terms to minimize the flow of words.

In the context of the game this in never true; and would be poor role play.

Hence why I believe it to be the lacionic explanation. If you don't think Renegades are ruthless you need to rethink what it means to be ruthless

Modifié par Hunter of Legends, 28 février 2012 - 12:05 .

[Farbautisonn]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Materialism isn't a problem and I can objectively design a morality without subjecting(haha) myself to it.

Yes, horrible puns

That sounds like the quintessential definition of hypocrisy to me...  

[Aimi]

QuarkZ26 wrote...

Well i guess it depends what you call altruism, because in the real sense of the term, neither Ghandi not MLK were altruists, they were fighting for an ideal, they weren't just nice to people for the sake of it...

Altruism: The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.

Ghandi was fighting for Indians and MLK for the blacks (although I'm not american so i might be mistaken)
The fact that they were peaceful people doesn't automatically make them altruists.

Hindus. Not Indians.

[Hunter of Legends]

Farbautisonn wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Materialism isn't a problem and I can objectively design a morality without subjecting(haha) myself to it.

Yes, horrible puns

That sounds like the quintessential definition of hypocrisy to me...  

How so?

[Farbautisonn]

Hunter of Legends wrote...
In the context of the game this in never true; and would be poor role play.

Hence why I believe it to be the lacionic explanation.

I would use the term "Oversimplification" to the point of "(deliberately) misleading". Highly effective given the right circumstances and the right audience. However not really in any sense of the word "obectively" correct.

[AlexXIV]

QuarkZ26 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

QuarkZ26 wrote...
Mother Theresa. 'nuff said.

-So you say...

Yes, there is  a reason I left Theresa off the list...

I'm sure that if I google enough i'll find critics about MLK and Ghandi as well... I won't even put Jesus in the conversation.

Which kind of supports the point of people who are sceptic about really selfless people of history. We like our fairy tale stories because they make us feel better.

[Hunter of Legends]

Farbautisonn wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...
In the context of the game this in never true; and would be poor role play.

Hence why I believe it to be the lacionic explanation.

I would use the term "Oversimplification" to the point of "(deliberately) misleading". Highly effective given the right circumstances and the right audience. However not really in any sense of the word "obectively" correct.

Perhaps, but again in the context of the game you can't really play a 100% paragon as anything but a diplomat.

Now real life on the other hand...

[Farbautisonn]

Because designing a morality for others to follow and not adhering to it oneself is inheritly hypocritical? Or perhaps I misundestood you? 

[QuarkZ26]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

THey were fighting for a better future for all people; helping that group just happened to be one way to do it.

What? Absolutely not. Ghandi was fighting against Tyranny in his country, not for all people in the world. Same goes for MLK. The problems he had in USA were not ones people had in Europe.

I'm not trying to dimish their actions, but telling me that they were altruists fighting for the world is just plain BS.

[Farbautisonn]

Hunter of Legends wrote...
Perhaps, but again in the context of the game you can't really play a 100% paragon as anything but a diplomat.

Now real life on the other hand...

Playing a 100%  Paragon ingame usually requires few acts of compromise. That seems to contradict the very definition of diplomacy. Out of game, diplomacy is more or less like haggleing.

[Hunter of Legends]

Farbautisonn wrote...

Because designing a morality for others to follow and not adhering to it oneself is inheritly hypocritical? Or perhaps I misundestood you? 

You misunderstood me

I can create a morality that can take money and social status out of the equation. That's not say I won't adhere to my own morality!

[AlexXIV]

QuarkZ26 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

THey were fighting for a better future for all people; helping that group just happened to be one way to do it.

What? Absolutely not. Ghandi was fighting against Tyranny in his country, not for all people in the world. Same goes for MLK. The problems he had in USA were not ones people had in Europe.

I'm not trying to dimish their actions, but telling me that they were altruists fighting for the world is just plain BS.

At least they were fighting for their people. Which is more than most do. I mean they could just have had a good life and live happily ever after but they chose to take one for the team.

[Hunter of Legends]

Farbautisonn wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...
Perhaps, but again in the context of the game you can't really play a 100% paragon as anything but a diplomat.

Now real life on the other hand...

Playing a 100%  Paragon ingame usually requires few acts of compromise. That seems to contradict the very definition of diplomacy. Out of game, diplomacy is more or less like haggleing.

Compromise doesn't contradict dimplomacy.

It's at the very  foundation of it! How do you think so many treaties are signed?

[Luxure]

I guess you are.