449 réponses à ce sujet

[Orian Tabris]

alliance commander wrote...

Erm, A gun?

Does this mean we can call all Americans who own guns, whether for "protection" or out of interest, villains?

They should change their name to NVA. The National Villain Association!

[MassivelyEffective0730]

phunx wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Can you make an argument that is based on science, research, and measurable data and evidence rather than a moralistic is-ought emotional appeal fallacy?

This is one of the silliest  things I've ever heard. Scientism much?

Why is it silly? Can you measure good? Can you measure evil?

Can you give me a block of evil, or put good sauce on my cheeseburger?

[KingRoxas]

Steelcan wrote...

Kingroxas wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

wasn't aware trying to seduce 13yr old girls was a confciting idealogy...

Sansa's 13?

yep

Huh, didn't know.Thought she was like 16-17 but ok.

Still only makes him disgusting, not a villian.

[Gwydden]

Kingroxas wrote...

Huh, didn't know.Thought she was like 16-17 but ok.

Still only makes him disgusting, not a villian.

Considering the customs of the era, not even that.

[KingRoxas]

Gwydden wrote...

Kingroxas wrote...

Huh, didn't know.Thought she was like 16-17 but ok.

Still only makes him disgusting, not a villian.

Considering the customs of the era, not even that.

Yeah.

[Gwydden]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Why is it silly? Can you measure good? Can you measure evil?

Can you give me a block of evil, or put good sauce on my cheeseburger?

Yet again, I feel the need to insist it is likely morality was born simply out of a social necessity. So if it's science you want, that's pretty close.

[Steelcan]

Kingroxas wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Kingroxas wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

wasn't aware trying to seduce 13yr old girls was a confciting idealogy...

Sansa's 13?

yep

Huh, didn't know.Thought she was like 16-17 but ok.

Still only makes him disgusting, not a villian.

You haven't read the books have you

[KingRoxas]

Steelcan wrote...

Kingroxas wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Kingroxas wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

wasn't aware trying to seduce 13yr old girls was a confciting idealogy...

Sansa's 13?

yep

Huh, didn't know.Thought she was like 16-17 but ok.

Still only makes him disgusting, not a villian.

You haven't read the books have you

Long time ago, as i say, didn't remember.

[Steelcan]

Kingroxas wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Kingroxas wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Kingroxas wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

wasn't aware trying to seduce 13yr old girls was a confciting idealogy...

Sansa's 13?

yep

Huh, didn't know.Thought she was like 16-17 but ok.

Still only makes him disgusting, not a villian.

You haven't read the books have you

Long time ago, as i say, didn't remember.

SPOILER for ASoIaF books Storm of Swords and A Feast for Crows

He had Lysa Arryn kill Jon Arryn, threw her from a tower, had it blamed on someone else, had him killed, bribes a pedophile with money and boys, and gets even creepier with Sansa

[Steelcan]

Not to be misunderstood, I like Littlefinger, but there is little doubt in my mind that he is a villain

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Gwydden wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Why is it silly? Can you measure good? Can you measure evil?

Can you give me a block of evil, or put good sauce on my cheeseburger?

Yet again, I feel the need to insist it is likely morality was born simply out of a social necessity. So if it's science you want, that's pretty close.

It's more historical. Now the question is whether or not morality can be limiting, though this is of course in a notional hypothetical environment. Simply put though, what is the measure of morality? 

[EmperorSahlertz]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

phunx wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Can you make an argument that is based on science, research, and measurable data and evidence rather than a moralistic is-ought emotional appeal fallacy?

This is one of the silliest  things I've ever heard. Scientism much?

Why is it silly? Can you measure good? Can you measure evil?

Can you give me a block of evil, or put good sauce on my cheeseburger?

You cannot see or confirm a blackhole eitehr, and it emits no measureable radiation, yet we accept their existance since it would explain otherwise inexplicable phenomena. You as a human are only able to see 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum, hear 1% of the aduible spectrum, and as you do this you are travelling across the universe aboard a globe at the speed of 220 km/s. The existance of rainbows are also completely dependant on the conical receptors in your eyes. Animals without these conical reciptors do not see a rainbow. Animals with more than three conical receptors see a cacophony of colours that your mind would be incapable of even comprehending.

Do not presume, that just because you are incapable of understanding or measure something, that it does not exist.

[Il Divo]

AresKeith wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

For me, all it takes is great acting/voice-acting and a great script.

I know there's a huge movement to push for "morally grey" villains (hence all the Loghain favorites) and while I think that's great, I can still enjoy a good villain in a black and white type story, if the presentation is great.

Pretty much everything comes down to being done well

Basically. You said in one line what it took me four to say.

Modifié par Il Divo, 03 février 2014 - 01:40 .

[Gwydden]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

It's more historical. Now the question is whether or not morality can be limiting, though this is of course in a notional hypothetical environment. Simply put though, what is the measure of morality? 

Considering morality is hardly homogeneous, whether it's limiting or not would depend on the person and circumstances. As I tried to depict in my example, failing to follow the general consensus regarding what is right and wrong leads to its own issues.

A lot of things aren't measurable. That doesn't automatically mean they don't have any value or practical relevance.

[Gwydden]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
You cannot see or confirm a blackhole eitehr, and it emits no measureable radiation, yet we accept their existance since it would explain otherwise inexplicable phenomena. You as a human are only able to see 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum, hear 1% of the aduible spectrum, and as you do this you are travelling across the universe aboard a globe at the speed of 220 km/s. The existance of rainbows are also completely dependant on the conical receptors in your eyes. Animals without these conical reciptors do not see a rainbow. Animals with more than three conical receptors see a cacophony of colours that your mind would be incapable of even comprehending.

Do not presume, that just because you are incapable of understanding or measure something, that it does not exist.

Just to be sure, are you denying morality is a human construct?

[KingRoxas]

Steelcan wrote...

Not to be misunderstood, I like Littlefinger, but there is little doubt in my mind that he is a villain

The only thing that makes him disgusting is his "love" for Sansa if she's only 13, all the other stuff is just the Game of Thrones  (IMO ofc)

Modifié par Kingroxas, 03 février 2014 - 01:51 .

[efd731]

I'm not sure how it would translate to the DA universe, but Vas....that man is my favourite villain ever.

[phunx]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

phunx wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Can you make an argument that is based on science, research, and measurable data and evidence rather than a moralistic is-ought emotional appeal fallacy?

This is one of the silliest  things I've ever heard. Scientism much?

Why is it silly? Can you measure good? Can you measure evil?

Can you give me a block of evil, or put good sauce on my cheeseburger?

No, that was sort of my point. Since you can't measure them with those methods, you shouldn't try to explain or solve them with those methods. Your approach to be "completly objective" is impossible. I could classify that as evil: Thinkinh you're beyond morality and being 100 % "objective" therefore whatever you do could not even possibly be wrong.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Gwydden wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
You cannot see or confirm a blackhole eitehr, and it emits no measureable radiation, yet we accept their existance since it would explain otherwise inexplicable phenomena. You as a human are only able to see 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum, hear 1% of the aduible spectrum, and as you do this you are travelling across the universe aboard a globe at the speed of 220 km/s. The existance of rainbows are also completely dependant on the conical receptors in your eyes. Animals without these conical reciptors do not see a rainbow. Animals with more than three conical receptors see a cacophony of colours that your mind would be incapable of even comprehending.

Do not presume, that just because you are incapable of understanding or measure something, that it does not exist.

Just to be sure, are you denying morality is a human construct?

I am saying that it is impossible for me as a mere mortal to know, so the very discussion of it is futile. With so many unknowns, and things that will remain unknown becasue human minds cannot comprehend it, I will never presume myself so superior as to make a statement to either side.

My point is, that there is an argument to be made from both sides.

[slimgrin]

A great villain is someone you can relate to. You can see his side of things, you can possibly even side with him. He has an intelligent reason to his motives, and those reasons are rooted in his character, not in him just being evil.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

phunx wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Can you make an argument that is based on science, research, and measurable data and evidence rather than a moralistic is-ought emotional appeal fallacy?

This is one of the silliest  things I've ever heard. Scientism much?

Why is it silly? Can you measure good? Can you measure evil?

Can you give me a block of evil, or put good sauce on my cheeseburger?

You cannot see or confirm a blackhole eitehr, and it emits no measureable radiation, yet we accept their existance since it would explain otherwise inexplicable phenomena.

Absolutely incorrect. Black holes do indeed give off radiation that can be visibly observed (quasar's) as well as radiation that can be detected. Also, a black holes existence can be verified by observing the curvature of light (and other objects such as stars) around the singularity. 

You as a human are only able to see 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum, hear 1% of the aduible spectrum, and as you do this you are travelling across the universe aboard a globe at the speed of 220 km/s.

Considering the first two are not given data charts or evidence (and are 'coincidentally' the same amount - very queer), I'm going to be skeptical until you provide further evidence. That said, what does physics have to do with morality? You're trying to account acoustics, sound, electromagnetic radiation, and the movement of the Earth to an abstraction aspect of the mind and psyche created and measured entirely within the confines of human consciousness and unobservable beyond a metaphysical and mental perspective.

The existance of rainbows are also completely dependant on the conical receptors in your eyes.

Incorrect. The existence of rainbows is light being refracted from water molecules in the atmosphere (or other gases). This is caused when rays of photons of visible light impact with molecules of dihydrogen oxide (water) and are blocked or redirected by the physical matter in their path.

In a rainbow, raindrops in the air act as tiny prisms. Light enters the raindrop, reflects off of the side of the drop and exits. In the process, it is broken into a spectrum just like it is in a triangular glass prism, like this:



The angle between the ray of light coming in and the ray coming out of the drops is 42 degrees for red and 40 degrees for violet. You can see in this diagram that the angles cause different colors from different drops to reach your eye, forming a circular rim of color in the sky -- a rainbow. 

Animals without these conical reciptors do not see a rainbow.

Not completely correct. Animals without optical organs obviously cannot detect visible light, but those with optical sensors would indeed detect some variation of changes in shades of light. For instance, lets say that the only color receptors that a creature had are variations of white and black (to make grey). What would they experience?

http://t0.gstatic.co...ZTozE7HCKTmTm1A

Animals with more than three conical receptors see a cacophony of colours that your mind would be incapable of even comprehending.

Incorrect. Animals may be able to perceive different shades of existing colors (i.e. more sensitivity to existing visible light), but it is impossible that they see some color that is absolutely different than what we as humans can perceive within our own visible light spectrum. It is true that some species can detect infrared radiation, and I believe some can detect ultraviolet radiation, but that would not use their eyes to detect those wavelengths. They would need a specialized organ to do such. If a photon or particle does not fall within the visible light spectrum, it does not have color in the sense that we can understand.

Do not presume, that just because you are incapable of understanding or measure something, that it does not exist.

What does the existence of an abstract concept that can not be physically measured or quantified, and does not objectively exist on a macro-scale of reality have to do with science. 

I'm not presuming anything at all. Simply put, it doesn't exist on a concrete, measurable, quantifiable, objective scale. There is no universal measurement for morality. The universe, and nature, is inherently amoral (when trying to apply a concept of morality to the universe. In reality, it simply isn't real).

So lets not try to compare objective, observable, measurable, concrete, universal phenomena with subjective, abstract, and notional human thought creations. 

It's facts vs. emotions. It's an innaccurate comparison.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 03 février 2014 - 02:07 .

[General TSAR]

Nanomachines, Son.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

phunx wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

phunx wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
Can you make an argument that is based on science, research, and measurable data and evidence rather than a moralistic is-ought emotional appeal fallacy?

This is one of the silliest  things I've ever heard. Scientism much?

Why is it silly? Can you measure good? Can you measure evil?

Can you give me a block of evil, or put good sauce on my cheeseburger?

No, that was sort of my point. Since you can't measure them with those methods, you shouldn't try to explain or solve them with those methods. Your approach to be "completly objective" is impossible. I could classify that as evil: Thinkinh you're beyond morality and being 100 % "objective" therefore whatever you do could not even possibly be wrong.

Why is it wrong? Is it factually incorrect?

My point is that it cannot be 100% objective. Therefore it cannot exist. It does not factually exist.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 03 février 2014 - 02:09 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Gwydden wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

It's more historical. Now the question is whether or not morality can be limiting, though this is of course in a notional hypothetical environment. Simply put though, what is the measure of morality? 

Considering morality is hardly homogeneous, whether it's limiting or not would depend on the person and circumstances. As I tried to depict in my example, failing to follow the general consensus regarding what is right and wrong leads to its own issues.

A lot of things aren't measurable. That doesn't automatically mean they don't have any value or practical relevance.

Why do you place value or relevance in something that doesn't physically exist (This isn't rhetorical, I'm going somewhere with it).