247 réponses à ce sujet

[KainD]

Stealing might not always be a crime, but it is still stealing.

[CynicalShep]

KainD wrote...

Stealing might not always be a crime, but it is still stealing.

Crimes don't exist. What you consider a crime others might consider justice, or just legal. 

[Thrillian]

KainD wrote...

Stealing might not always be a crime, but it is still stealing.

Joking might not always be funny (clearly), but it is still joking.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

KainD wrote...

Stealing might not always be a crime, but it is still stealing.

It's not stealing if you don't get caught.

It's not stealing, it's borrowing without asking permission and without intent to give it back.

Only one a**hole ever stole anything in the Army. Everyone else is just trying to get their **** back.

Strategically taking equipment to another location.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 23 décembre 2013 - 05:21 .

[KainD]

CynicalShep wrote...

KainD wrote...

Stealing might not always be a crime, but it is still stealing.

Crimes don't exist. What you consider a crime others might consider justice, or just legal. 

exactly. 

[CynicalShep]

KainD wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

KainD wrote...

Stealing might not always be a crime, but it is still stealing.

Crimes don't exist. What you consider a crime others might consider justice, or just legal. 

exactly. 

Exactness is relative. What I consider incredibly accurate might not be considered as such by a more idealistic individual. See a pattern here?

Modifié par CynicalShep, 23 décembre 2013 - 05:22 .

[AresKeith]

KainD wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

KainD wrote...

Stealing might not always be a crime, but it is still stealing.

Crimes don't exist. What you consider a crime others might consider justice, or just legal. 

exactly. 

Smh

[KainD]

CynicalShep wrote..

Exactness is relative. What I consider incredibly accurate might not be considered as such by a more idealistic individual. See a pattern here?

I was expressing my own personal relative agreament with your saying. 

But you turned off all the level filters again, damnit. 

Modifié par KainD, 23 décembre 2013 - 05:29 .

[CynicalShep]

KainD wrote...

CynicalShep wrote..

Exactness is relative. What I consider incredibly accurate might not be considered as such by a more idealistic individual. See a pattern here?

I was expressing my own personal relative agreament with your saying. 

And I was explaining why this is a game we can play all day. Heroes will exist as long as there will be people who consider others heroes. Kindness will exist as long as people will classify certain behaviour as kindness. Scary people will exist as long as there is at least one individual who is scared of people, etc.

[KainD]

CynicalShep wrote...

And I was explaining why this is a game we can play all day. Heroes will exist as long as there will be people who consider others heroes. Kindness will exist as long as people will classify certain behaviour as kindness. Scary people will exist as long as there is at least one individual who is scared of people, etc.

The reason I am discussing it here is because this is a game we all play. We all have different opinions, but at the same time we all still play the same content. As such it is a little unfair when someone gets a hero fantasy, while another person is in discontent with the plot. As such I think it is better to have a realistic plot rather than a heroic one. Makes sense? 

[Medhia Nox]

Annnd.... we have discovered the intellectual dead end that is moral relativism.

[CynicalShep]

KainD wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

And I was explaining why this is a game we can play all day. Heroes will exist as long as there will be people who consider others heroes. Kindness will exist as long as people will classify certain behaviour as kindness. Scary people will exist as long as there is at least one individual who is scared of people, etc.

The reason I am discussing it here is because this is a game we all play. We all have different opinions, but at the same time we all still play the same content. As such it is a little unfair when someone gets a hero fantasy, while another person is in discontent with the plot. As such I think it is better to have a realistic plot rather than a heroic one. Makes sense? 

That is a matter of preference and wasn't what I replied to you about. I don't quite care if it's a heroic plot or realistic plot as long as I find it enjoyable (and that could work with both). And if we get a "realistic" plot you are ignoring the people who want a heroic plot. That's not fair, now is it?

Again, that is not what I was arguing about. I argued that heroes exist. People might have a different idea of what/who a hero is but that doesn't negate their existence. Some say Warren Buffet is smart because he knows how to work the stocks. Others say that "silver-tongued" people are smart because they have a way with words. Einstein was smart because he was a briliant scientist. That kid at school was smart because he got the best grades. The standards might be different but they are all smart people. Same applies to heroes.

[KainD]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Annnd.... we have discovered the intellectual dead end that is moral relativism.

That's not a dead end, that's an intelectual pinnacle.

[Medhia Nox]

A relativist can't have a pinnacle - "intelectual" or otherwise.

[Br3admax]

CynicalShep wrote...

KainD wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

And I was explaining why this is a game we can play all day. Heroes will exist as long as there will be people who consider others heroes. Kindness will exist as long as people will classify certain behaviour as kindness. Scary people will exist as long as there is at least one individual who is scared of people, etc.

The reason I am discussing it here is because this is a game we all play. We all have different opinions, but at the same time we all still play the same content. As such it is a little unfair when someone gets a hero fantasy, while another person is in discontent with the plot. As such I think it is better to have a realistic plot rather than a heroic one. Makes sense? 

That is a matter of preference and wasn't what I replied to you about. I don't quite care if it's a heroic plot or realistic plot as long as I find it enjoyable (and that could work with both). And if we get a "realistic" plot you are ignoring the people who want a heroic plot. That's not fair, now is it?

Again, that is not what I was arguing about. I argued that heroes exist. People might have a different idea of what/who a hero is but that doesn't negate their existence. Some say Warren Buffet is smart because he knows how to work the stocks. Others say that "silver-tongued" people are smart because they have a way with words. Einstein was smart because he was a briliant scientist. That kid at school was smart because he got the best grades. The standards might be different but they are all smart people. Same applies to heroes.

This. Does smartmess not exist either?

[KainD]

Medhia Nox wrote...

A relativist can't have a pinnacle - "intelectual" or otherwise.

Sure can. 

[KainD]

CynicalShep wrote...

That is a matter of preference and wasn't what I replied to you about. I don't quite care if it's a heroic plot or realistic plot as long as I find it enjoyable (and that could work with both). And if we get a "realistic" plot you are ignoring the people who want a heroic plot. That's not fair, now is it?

Again, that is not what I was arguing about. I argued that heroes exist. People might have a different idea of what/who a hero is but that doesn't negate their existence. Some say Warren Buffet is smart because he knows how to work the stocks. Others say that "silver-tongued" people are smart because they have a way with words. Einstein was smart because he was a briliant scientist. That kid at school was smart because he got the best grades. The standards might be different but they are all smart people. Same applies to heroes.

I don't know what else to say. We don't quite understand each other. But ok, different heroes do exist for different people. 

[KainD]

Br3ad wrote...

This. Does smartmess not exist either?

SmartMess is right here. 

But anyway, I think smartness is just a scale - the more you know overall the smarter you are. 

[CynicalShep]

KainD wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

This. Does smartmess not exist either?

SmartMess is right here. 

But anyway, I think smartness is just a scale - the more you know overall the smarter you are. 

That's not necessarily true, either. You can be good in school and know a good deal of everything or you can dedicate your life to chemistry and come up with new alloys, solve environmantal issues or make a new, undetectable poison (which would be a blast with cutthroat politicians or businessmen). Volume doesn't necessarily mean quality, in this case. I think the more an intellect can accomplish - the smarter a person is.
It's all relative, heh.

[Fishy]

Realism in a fantasy video game. That what I call ''abstract''.

EDIT

Since you always have to put the realism into the context of the world/story they're in. That how I see thing. Has for me a hero it's something really simple. It's someone who's selfless. I don't consider Geralt a Hero. Most of the time anyway.

Modifié par Suprez30, 23 décembre 2013 - 06:42 .

[KainD]

CynicalShep wrote...
Volume doesn't necessarily mean quality, in this case. I think the more an intellect can accomplish - the smarter a person is.

I think quality is directly related to volume. The more you know, the more intelligent you are. You can shape ideas around different known concepts, mix them, work with them, come up with hybrids, build logical patterns, and the limit is always the volume. 

[CynicalShep]

KainD wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...
Volume doesn't necessarily mean quality, in this case. I think the more an intellect can accomplish - the smarter a person is.

I think quality is directly related to volume. The more you know, the more intelligent you are. You can shape ideas around different known concepts, mix them, work with them, come up with hybrids, build logical patterns, and the limit is always the volume. 

But is it the sheer volume or your ability to shape ideas and come up with hybrids what makes you intelligent. You can have a good memory and no imagination, good imagination and bad memory, etc. Knowing a lot doesn't necessarily mean good decision-making and inventivity. I will take a ingenuous person over a walking library any day.

Edit: animals are capable of learning dozens of commands/tricks, learning paths and even hunting in packs (with an actual strategy). Humans invented nuclear weapons, computers and aicraft. Ability to make something out of nothing > ability to absorb the maximum amount of information, IMO

Modifié par CynicalShep, 23 décembre 2013 - 07:07 .

[Zerker]

To people apologizing to me personally, my outburst was a joke dudes, keep going if you feel like it as there is no salvaging this anyway.