1429 réponses à ce sujet

[Gimmemocha]

Woman Warden 118 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Woman Warden 118 wrote...

lolz Woman Warden 118 approves+43 and ,emberresed, says thank you but im not sure how to respond to that...lolz

+43? Why that? I give you 42, the meaning of life, and all i get is an ugly 43?:crying::crying::crying::crying::crying:

You made me sad. You need to make me happy again by visiting me in my tent palace. (I sold some slaves, so I have bigger beds now:devil:)

You are allowed to bring your sex-slaves. Maybe I´ll even buy one, if they are worth the price.

gah i have no slaves!!! how could you think i do!?

Can we make Riordan a slave?  

[Tirigon]

Woman Warden 118 wrote...

gah i have no slaves!!! how could you think i do!?

You said you would sell Knight. So you have at least one.

Anyways, you can come alone, if you prefer. (Of course you need to stay 2 nights, thenB))

[Thomas9321]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Thomas9321 wrote...

I think the slaves that suffered to acomplish these great things would disagree with you there.

That's
why I said, in the larger picture. Sure, they wouldn't have liked it.
Doesn't change the fact that we look up to prievous civilisations with
admiration. And it doesn't change the fact that it contributed to human
advancement.
They didn't reap the rewards, but the majority did. That's how it works.

But that does not change the fact that these mighty civilisations were build upon the blood of others. Look at all Sparta built, but it was built upon the blood of the Helots. I don't think slavery can ever be considered morally correct.

Modifié par Thomas9321, 14 janvier 2010 - 09:49 .

[Woman Warden 118]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Woman Warden 118 wrote...
 Is slavery ever right? If you were in Loghains position would you do the same?

I will answer only this, because everything else you say is uninformed nonsense.
Slavery is not always wrong. The greatest human empires and civilsiations used slavery. Egypt and Mesopotamia used slavery. The first democracy used slavery. The Romans used slavery. Israel used slavery. The Chinese used slavery. The Islamic Empires used slavery. Europe used slavery..etc etc. Great things have been accomplished thanks to slavery. So I do not rule out slavery as being necessarily a bad thing, in the larger picture.
I am against slavery when it becomes racialised, aka like "the burden of the white man" bs. In other words, believing that one race is so inferior that they were born to be slaves. That kind of mentality I abhor.

If I was in Loghain's position and I needed cash badly, I would have done the exact same hting. Not because I take pleasure from it. Not because I think the elves are inherently inferior. But simply because I need cash and the elves are the easiet to sell.

 

then why do you find the elves inferior and the first ones to be sold???

[Woman Warden 118]

Tirigon wrote...

Woman Warden 118 wrote...

gah i have no slaves!!! how could you think i do!?

You said you would sell Knight. So you have at least one.

Anyways, you can come alone, if you prefer. (Of course you need to stay 2 nights, thenB))

 i never said that

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

That's why I said, in the larger picture. Sure, they wouldn't have liked it. Doesn't change the fact that we look up to prievous civilisations with admiration. And it doesn't change the fact that it contributed to human advancement.
They didn't reap the rewards, but the majority did. That's how it works.

Your position is certainly valid if you are interested in the "larger picture". I however think the larger picture is nothing but excuses for tyranny, so I disagree. I don´t care for a larger picture. I care for the individual´s freedom and fun. Mostly for mine, among all the billions of individuals, of course. It is an utopia to please everyone.

[Woman Warden 118]

Thomas9321 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Thomas9321 wrote...

I think the slaves that suffered to acomplish these great things would disagree with you there.

That's
why I said, in the larger picture. Sure, they wouldn't have liked it.
Doesn't change the fact that we look up to prievous civilisations with
admiration. And it doesn't change the fact that it contributed to human
advancement.
They didn't reap the rewards, but the majority did. That's how it works.

But that does not change the fact that these mighty civilisations were build upon the blood of others. Look at all Sparta built, but it was built upon the blood of the Helots. I don't think slavery can ever be considered morally correct.

Thomas is right, it is not morally right. Sparta was fighting not selling

[Tirigon]

Woman Warden 118 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
You said you would sell Knight. So you have at least one.

 i never said that

You did:

Woman Warden 118 wrote...
ok fine you win!
ill see you in
a couple days when i bust down your door and sell you into islamic sex
slavery. then we can argue if selling people as property is ok at any
time.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Thomas9321 wrote...
But that does not change the fact that these mighty civilisations were build upon the blood of others. Look at all Sparta built, but it was built upon the blood of the Helots. I don't think slavery can ever be considered morally
correct.

Greatest is built upon blood. That's how the world always worked, works and will always work. If you want to assume your position, then you must consider humanity and its entire history as "morally incorrect". Which is something I personally care not to do; I like humanity as it is.
David Hume: "We must take man as we find him".

then why do you find the elves inferior and the first ones to be sold???

Because they are in a position of weakness. And they are already ignored by others. So selling them is easier.
I never said elves are inferior, they once were great people. But now they are weak. The strong always take advantage of the weak. That's how it works.  

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

That's why I said, in the larger picture. Sure, they wouldn't have liked it. Doesn't change the fact that we look up to prievous civilisations with admiration. And it doesn't change the fact that it contributed to human advancement.
They didn't reap the rewards, but the majority did. That's how it works.

Your position is certainly valid if you are interested in the "larger picture". I however think the larger picture is nothing but excuses for tyranny, so I disagree. I don´t care for a larger picture. I care for the individual´s freedom and fun. Mostly for mine, among all the billions of individuals, of course. It is an utopia to please everyone.

Then I am glad humanity was not lead by people like you

[Woman Warden 118]

Gimmemocha wrote...

Woman Warden 118 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Woman Warden 118 wrote...

lolz Woman Warden 118 approves+43 and ,emberresed, says thank you but im not sure how to respond to that...lolz

+43? Why that? I give you 42, the meaning of life, and all i get is an ugly 43?:crying::crying::crying::crying::crying:

You made me sad. You need to make me happy again by visiting me in my tent palace. (I sold some slaves, so I have bigger beds now:devil:)

You are allowed to bring your sex-slaves. Maybe I´ll even buy one, if they are worth the price.

gah i have no slaves!!! how could you think i do!?

Can we make Riordan a slave?  

well...Riordan is sexy, but he has to be willing to join lolz

[Woman Warden 118]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Thomas9321 wrote...
But that does not change the fact that these mighty civilisations were build upon the blood of others. Look at all Sparta built, but it was built upon the blood of the Helots. I don't think slavery can ever be considered morally
correct.

Greatest is built upon blood. That's how the world always worked, works and will always work. If you want to assume your position, then you must consider humanity and its entire history as "morally incorrect". Which is something I personally care not to do; I like humanity as it is.
David Hume: "We must take man as we find him".

then why do you find the elves inferior and the first ones to be sold???

Because they are in a position of weakness. And they are already ignored by others. So selling them is easier.
I never said elves are inferior, they once were great people. But now they are weak. The strong always take advantage of the weak. That's how it works.  

your right they CAN, that doesnt mean they SHOULD. if society were like God intended it to be, the strong would HELP the weak , not take advantage of them. but im done arguing with hypocrites today, maybe tomorrow? Bye Tirigon ill talk to you later

[KnightofPhoenix]

What the world IS is one objective fact. What the world SHOULD be is nothing but a pile of dreams that have no use and cannot really be debated. But you are right, I am done too.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Your position is certainly valid if you are interested in the "larger picture". I however think the larger picture is nothing but excuses for tyranny, so I disagree. I don´t care for a larger picture. I care for the individual´s freedom and fun. Mostly for mine, among all the billions of individuals, of course. It is an utopia to please everyone.

Then I am glad humanity was not lead by people like you

But it WAS lead by people like me. That´s why they accomplished progress: Because they themselves would profit mostly. I mean, Alexander The Great got honor, women, money, slaves and whine by his deeds....:devil:Nothing wrong with that if you want to have fun. Though I would have freed the slaves. I wouldn´t want to have my food served by someone with reason to poison me. Alex should have done the same, he died from poison with 32...

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

What the world IS is one objective fact. What the world SHOULD be is nothing but a pile of dreams that have no use and cannot really be debated. But you are right, I am done too.

I think, it´s no use to talk about how the world is. Because we all know that, it´s not interesting.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I thought you didn't like tyrants....

[Thomas9321]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Thomas9321 wrote...
But that does not change the fact that these mighty civilisations were build upon the blood of others. Look at all Sparta built, but it was built upon the blood of the Helots. I don't think slavery can ever be considered morally
correct.

Greatest is built upon blood. That's how the world always worked, works and will always work. If you want to assume your position, then you must consider humanity and its entire history as "morally incorrect". Which is something I personally care not to do; I like humanity as it is.
David Hume: "We must take man as we find him".

then why do you find the elves inferior and the first ones to be sold???

Because they are in a position of weakness. And they are already ignored by others. So selling them is easier.
I never said elves are inferior, they once were great people. But now they are weak. The strong always take advantage of the weak. That's how it works.  

I'd like to contest your Hume quote by pointing out Hume was a pillock . Kant argued that it was our duty to do the right thing if we were able to. Surely, stopping  slavery is the right thing?

Humanity's history is morally incorrect, it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. I agree with Kant however, if we are able to do good, it is our duty to do so. You cannot argue that slavery jutifies the civilisations that it built - indeed it mars them.

The strong take advantage of the weak, and this is wrong. It is just wrong. This is not how the civilised world works. It is not the fault of the elves that they are in that position. You cannot justify slavery any more than you can justify rape.

Modifié par Thomas9321, 14 janvier 2010 - 10:14 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

What the world IS is one objective fact. What the world SHOULD be is nothing but a pile of dreams that have no use and cannot really be debated. But you are right, I am done too.

I think, it´s no use to talk about how the world is. Because we all know that, it´s not interesting.

Some people don't. In fact, most people don't. That's the funny thing about it.
But I don't mind. Humanity progressed with illusions of change, so let them think that way.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I thought you didn't like tyrants....

I don´t. But, obviously, I would change my mind if I was in charge. The problem with dictators is not so much that they are dictators, it´s more that they aren´t you but someone else.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Thomas9321 wrote...
I'd like to contest your Hume quote by pointing out Hume was a pillock . Kant argued that it was our duty to do the right thing if we were able to. Surely, stopping  slavery is the right thing?

Humanity's history is morally incorrect, it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. I agree with Kant however, if we are able to do good, it is our duty to do so. You cannot argue that slavery jutifies the civilisations that it built - indeed it mars them.

The strong take advantage of the weak, and this is wrong. It is just wrong. This is not how the civilised world works. It is not the fault of the elves that they are in that position. You cannot justify slavery any more than you can justify rape.

Hume was a brilliant mind, who was under no illusion and did not try to change humanity. He tells it as it is.
According to Kant, stopping slavery is the right hting. But also, according to Kant, lying under any circumstances is wrong, even if it is a white lie, or a necessary lie. Also, in addition, according Kant, killing is always morally incorrect, even if killing one person would save ten others. His categorical imperative refuses any kind of hypotheticals. So if you wnat to be a Kantian, assume all of his philosophy and not just parts of it.
Now I don't want to start critiquing Kant, with Utlitarian, Aristotlian and Humian logic, because that could take pages. Suffice to say that Kant's idea is an idea, not a fact.
As such, all of that is your opinion and your ethical tastes. I have completely different ones. So don't try to impose your view on me. I see human history as beautiful, with all of its greatness and tragedies.

Slavery is constructive. Rape never is. 2 different things.
And yes it's the elves fault that they are weak. 
And yes, this is how the civilised world came to be in the first place.

 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 14 janvier 2010 - 10:22 .

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Hume was a brilliant mind, who was under no illusion and did not try to change humanity. He tells it as it is.
According to Kant, stopping slavery is the right hting. But also, according to Kant, lying under any circumstances is wrong, even if it is a white lie, or a necessary lie. Also, in addition, according Kant, killing is always morally incorrect, even if killing one person would save ten others. His categorical imperative refuses any kind of hypotheticals. So if you wnat to be a Kantian, assume all of his philosophy and not just parts of it.
Now I don't want to start critiquing Kant, with Utlitarian, Aristotlian and Humian logic, because that could take pages. Suffice to say that Kant's idea is an idea, not a fact.
As such, all of that is your opinion and your ethical tastes. I have completely different ones. So don't try to impose your view on me. I see human history as beautiful, with all of its greatness and tragedies.

Slavery is constructive. Rape never is. 2 different things.
And yes it's the elves fault that they are weak. 
And yes, this is how the civilised world came to be in the first place.

I admit I don´t know for sure who Hume is. I know Kant, though. I always thought he wrote sh*t,if you interprete it in the common way , to be honest. My personal interpretation of the cathegorical imperative, however, differs from the common: I see it as a awkward way to say: You can do what you want as long as everyone else gets the same right.
This is a very intelligent and fair rule, I think (no matter if it comes from Kant or if I´m just brilliant myselfB))

[Ulicus]

Urg. Kant. Dry as they come.

[Tirigon]

Ulicus wrote...

Urg. Kant. Dry as they come.

Look at it like that: From now on you can say you increase your philosophical knowledge if you spend time on these forums.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...
I admit I don´t know for sure who Hume is. I know Kant, though. I always thought he wrote sh*t,if you interprete it in the common way , to be honest. My personal interpretation of the cathegorical imperative, however, differs from the common: I see it as a awkward way to say: You can do what you want as long as everyone else gets the same right.
This is a very intelligent and fair rule, I think (no matter if it comes from Kant or if I´m just brilliant myselfB))

That's not how it is. The categorical imperative is supposed to show that any action contrary to duty would in fact be either a contradiction in conception: aka create a world where it would be logically flawed and incapable of being concieved. For instance, he argues that in a world where everyone lies, then there is no such thing as truth and noe one would believe the other. He considers this world to be logically inconceivable, thus, lying is contrary to duty, regardless of circumstances.
Or it would be a contradiction of will. For instance, being selfish would create a world where no one would help you, because everyone is selfish, but since everyone needs help and cannot find it, then they are going against their own interest, thus selfishness is creating a world contrary to your own will. Which is debatable, but this is how Kant argues it.

Kant is not talking about rights. Lying is always wrong, even if everyone else has the same right. Being intellectually laxzy is always conrary to duty, even if everyone else has the right to be one. He sees morality as being a priori in reason. That reason alone determine what is morality and there is no "rights" in the question.

Your interpretation is very uncommon and from what I understood of Kant, I would say incorrect.

[Thomas9321]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Thomas9321 wrote...
I'd like to contest your Hume quote by pointing out Hume was a pillock . Kant argued that it was our duty to do the right thing if we were able to. Surely, stopping  slavery is the right thing?

Humanity's history is morally incorrect, it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. I agree with Kant however, if we are able to do good, it is our duty to do so. You cannot argue that slavery jutifies the civilisations that it built - indeed it mars them.

The strong take advantage of the weak, and this is wrong. It is just wrong. This is not how the civilised world works. It is not the fault of the elves that they are in that position. You cannot justify slavery any more than you can justify rape.

Hume was a brilliant mind, who was under no illusion and did not try to change humanity. He tells it as it is.
According to Kant, stopping slavery is the right hting. But also, according to Kant, lying under any circumstances is wrong, even if it is a white lie, or a necessary lie. Also, in addition, according Kant, killing is always morally incorrect, even if killing one person would save ten others. His categorical imperative refuses any kind of hypotheticals. So if you wnat to be a Kantian, assume all of his philosophy and not just parts of it.
Now I don't want to start critiquing Kant, with Utlitarian, Aristotlian and Humian logic, because that could take pages. Suffice to say that Kant's idea is an idea, not a fact.
As such, all of that is your opinion and your ethical tastes. I have completely different ones. So don't try to impose your view on me. I see human history as beautiful, with all of its greatness and tragedies.

Slavery is constructive. Rape never is. 2 different things.
And yes it's the elves fault that they are weak. 
And yes, this is how the civilised world came to be in the first place.

 

No, I can easily agree with parts of Kant's philosophy but disagree with others. Look, heres me doing it now! I'm sure Hume was wonderful, but despite his empiricism he was as much idea as Kant. Don't try and act all high and mighty, this isn't a philosophoical discussion anyway. Besides, I dislike Kant, I think his ideas are nonsense at times, but here I felt it applicable. Furthermore, I am not trying to impose my opinions on you, I am merely expressing my views as a counter argument to your and politely disagreeing.

In addition, don't pull the human history is beatiful line on my, one of the most important aspects of being a historian is evaluating history and seeimg the good and the bad. How can human history be wholy beautiful when it contains such hideous tragedies? By your logic the two world wars, the red terror, the Mongol invasions, the Timurid's, Sparta's treatment of the Helots are all beautiful? I say this as a historian, human history has moments of stunning beauty, horrific tradgedy and acts of human cruelty that should make us feel ashamed. To say its all beautiful is to be a idealistic fool.

But anyway, I don't think either of us have mentioned Loghain in some time. Accepting we have different views on what is morally correct, I would put forward that we can both agree slavery should not be used as a matter of course and that Loghain's justification is inadequate. I propose this is because there are other avenuees of fund raising he could have used, such as selling lands or titles, or imposed taxes.

I'd also like to say, lets make sure this stays civil as I'm enjoying the conversation.