Why Preach? |
Post Reply |
Page <12345 11> |
| Author | |
ajqtrz
Postmaster Joined: 24 May 2014 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 500 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 23 Jan 2016 at 00:34 |
|
Fiona, since I'm not sure why Belegar is so upset I am not sure what trick I performed. Be that as it may, do you have anything to say about the subject at hand? Do you think it a good thing or bad for a person to speak up about philosophical things. I read your post and can't find the answer it. But of course I'm just being sarcastic, right?
And while I'm at it, I apologize if big words offend you. Sometimes though, little words can't convey large thoughts quite as clearly. My suggestion is that you keep a dictionary or use dictionary.com. By doing so you will not only understand what I'm saying more clearly, but also be truly able to correct me. Wouldn't that be nice. And now to respond to my friend, Belegar. |
|
![]() |
|
ajqtrz
Postmaster Joined: 24 May 2014 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 500 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 23 Jan 2016 at 00:36 |
|
Belegar,
Well, how about that. I'm not sure were, in my comments, I "answered with insults, jokes." I'm re-reading it now and can't find any joke. The opening paragraph is a rebuttal of your claim that "nobody is interested" in high minded philosophy. I presented evidence to the contrary, evidence which actually disproves your point. That's debate, not insult or joking. You do have a very good point about my over the top reference to my debating experience. Upon reflection I do regret very much the display of hubris. The only 'excuse' I can offer is that I hate competitions where the contestants are unevenly matched AND I did not remember your background, which would be a very good match, indeed. For my stupidity I apologize. I got your point in the basketball analogy but countered with the claim that a basketball game is a closed venue, while each thread of the forum is independent and nobody has to "attend." Again, denying venue of an analogy is a typical debating tactic. You claimed a venue of a captive audience expecting a basketball game and I countered with a free audience expecting a philosophical discourse (only because they, I assume, know my style). As for a joke or insult, I see little in what I said. If you see in the paragraph about what I think you might think a debate should be as some form of insult, I apologize. The comment about what you might be envisioning could be read as an insult I guess, and if so I am truly sorry. It was not meant to be but was offered as a poorly worded distinction between a formal and informal debate format. Given all this I wonder if you might reconsider what you have written as it was, I think, rather harsh.. The debate I proposed was perfectly serious.
AJ |
|
![]() |
|
Nokigon
Postmaster General Player Council - Historian Joined: 07 Nov 2010 Status: Offline Points: 1452 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 23 Jan 2016 at 00:50 |
|
Oh Lord, we're now devolving into cheap shots over who's done more debating.
Ordinarily, I tend to avoid your philosophical diatribes, but I do tend to take issue when I witness self-declared intellectual superiority being used to insult a man whom I count as a friend.
I had began to write out a very long rebuttal to your arguments, but then realised that what I wanted to say could be summarised very shortly.
Your personal life experiences do not automatically qualify you to instruct others as to how their life should be led, nor does it qualify you to heap scorn on those (such as Belegar) who dared to challenge your opinion, simply because you assume your opinion is more valid/your skills of debate more effective.
You are more than entitled to offer your opinion. However, understand that your opinion is in this instance solitary, and that the opinions of others can be equally worthwhile. The reason why preaching is potentially best avoided is because telling everyone else how to live their lives, regardless of how well-intentioned you are, is best avoided.
I recognise the irony and hypocrisy in my previous statement; I reiterate that you are welcome to advance your opinion. I would merely suggest that you should be aware that others have a different experience to yours, and your experience does not necessarily qualify you to be a better debater or a more effective thinker than them. For that reason, and that reason alone, deriding the opinion of others by saying that you would "eat them for lunch" in a debate is not advisable.
Incidentally, I was taught to debate by a former England WSDC coach, and Abstract's comment was in relation to KP's video.
|
|
![]() |
|
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General Joined: 23 Feb 2010 Status: Offline Points: 1853 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply Posted: 23 Jan 2016 at 02:17 |
|
OP can be summed up in one antipodean acronym - FIGJAM
|
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
|
![]() |
|
palmz
Greenhorn Joined: 05 Jul 2015 Location: BL Status: Offline Points: 58 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 23 Jan 2016 at 02:28 |
|
lol never heard of that one before Killerpoodle, you sir may have hit the nail on the head....... and you just won the debate.
|
|
![]() |
|
ajqtrz
Postmaster Joined: 24 May 2014 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 500 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 23 Jan 2016 at 02:50 |
|
Nokigon,
Well, I certainly would deserve a dressing down if I hadn't already apologized. Hopefully you read the entire thread before responding, if not, maybe a review would be in order. Obviously I know I make mistakes or Belegar's attempt to point it out to me would have fallen on deaf ears. I only wish he would have given more details as to what he actually took offense. But he didn't, though it only took me a moment to find it. In the end I must do a better job of proof reading and slow down more before I respond. As for my "philosophical diatribes," I'm wondering if you understand that the use of "diatribe" as a descriptor is in correct. A "diatribe" is defined as " a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something." While my responses may be forceful and once in a while against someone or something" they are seldom, if ever, bitter. I, almost always and usually only by accident, (as in the above response), attack anybody personally. If I did so that would be an act of hypocrisy, but then again we all engage in a bit of that from time to time, don't we? And, just to be clear, if I were seven feet tall, scored 35 pts a game with 12 rebounds, and shot 85% of my three point shots would I have the right to say I was a better basketball player than you? And if you challenged me to a one on one shoot out with a serious consequences should you lose, would it not be a most generous thing to inform of my accomplishments before you signed on the dotted line and took to the court against me? Proof is in the performance of such skills and only a fool tries to pretend he isn't what he is. Yes, there are places where you should not put forth such claims, but only if they aren't true, or aren't needed to be known. I've never understood the concept of false humility as I think it's just a false virtue. Along these lines you would be hard pressed, I think, to find any place where I claimed moral or intellectual superiority. You can, of course, infer it in places where I say I'm right and you are wrong, or where I put forth more evidence and reasoning than others, but that's only something you read into the text on a social level. My actions are to invite all to speak but to encourage them both by example and by repentance should my example fail, to be civil. Still, other than the gaff admitted and repented of, what exactly was wrong with my response to Belegar's challenge? And thank you for taking a stance on preaching. Now would you like to prove, via reasoning and logic, that when you say "The reason why preaching is potentially best avoided is because telling everyone else how to live their lives, regardless of how well-intentioned you are, is best avoided." You do realize that the "because" of that statement uses the statement as proof of itself? In essence you say, It's best to avoid preaching because it best to avoid preaching." But to give you the benefit of the doubt here are some reasons to avoid preaching: 1) People get mad and do irrational things in response, like attacking you or your work. 2) People get mad and refuse to actually engage in a debate, preferring to focus on your personality rather than the subject at hand. 3) People get mad and forget that their passion does not equal the audiences persuasion. 4) People get mad and think you the cause of their anger when sometimes they are too embarrassed to admit they have just been caught believing unbelievable things. As a friend of mine once said, "When emotions rule they seldom rule well." And what's with the reference to your debating history at the end? Didn't we just say it was inappropriate to mention such things unless absolutely necessary and so we didn't appear to be bragging or something, (I guess that's what we concluded, correct me if I'm mistaken). And finally, you are correct that my experience does not necessarily qualify you to be a better debater, but if you were hurt and needed emergency surgery, who would you want: the first year medical student or an experienced surgeon? There are bad surgeons, for sure, but my money is on experience every time. AJ |
|
![]() |
|
Ricky
Greenhorn Joined: 22 May 2015 Location: Elgea Status: Offline Points: 50 |
Post Options
Thanks(3)
Quote Reply Posted: 23 Jan 2016 at 03:00 |
|
I think the crux of the issue here, aj, is not that anyone disputes your amazing viruosity in preaching, it's just that no-one considers preaching to be a useful endeavor.
|
|
![]() |
|
Adrian Shephard
New Poster Joined: 03 Dec 2015 Location: Ohio Status: Offline Points: 26 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply Posted: 23 Jan 2016 at 04:33 |
|
AJ stop being a jerk and come off your tower ok? its not funny anymore nor was it ever funny and you....just stop it
|
|
![]() |
|
Shûl-nak
Wordsmith Warpainter Joined: 23 Dec 2014 Status: Offline Points: 197 |
Post Options
Thanks(2)
Quote Reply Posted: 23 Jan 2016 at 06:12 |
|
ajqtrz, your continued imposition of real-world morals upon this virtual sandbox are frankly laughable.
Firstly, I have seen you contend that you have some right to free speech here. I distinctly recall signing away my rights to free speech when I accepted the terms and conditions of Illyriad that specifically deny the ability to discuss certain topics. If you were truly trying to defend free speech here, I would argue that attacking the banhammer, the Block function, Rikoo's chat moderation, and other means of literally silencing people would be a far more convincing use of your time in this respect. So, there was no free speech to begin with. You also claim that your suffering of in-game attacks over your tiresome rhetoric are a form of 'bullying.' While the letter of the definition would dictate that any in-game attacks here may be a form of coercion, there are important distinctions to make in the spirit of it : firstly, attacks on your virtual holdings here are not attacks on you personally. A personal attack goes above and beyond what is displayed in the sandbox; attacking a person's real world gender, job, family, lifestyle choices, who, importantly, did not choose to enter a discussion where those things might be challenged. In addition, the rise and fall of your virtual holdings here in no way affects your ability to speak as you will. Any harm inflicted upon you because of your attachment to the things you build in this fictional, virtual world, are entirely a result of your own decision to place values on them. In the real world, people who speak out may risk their health, lives, the security of their family and friends. Here you are risking some digits on a screen. In the real world, a true debate has no virtual cities in its periphery whose existence still has absolutely no effect on the legitimacy of the arguments being put forward. They are a distraction, aj, a useful tool for you to paint the attacks you suffer in-game as violations of fundamental rights of modern socities. For the sake of all that is reasonable, this is a fantasy sandbox where the very existence of offensive military and diplomatic measures explicitly shows that the developers intended conflict to be a part of the game and metagame. Any player who places such importance on their 'possessions' here that an attack upon them is synonymous with an attack on their real-life core moral values or emotional health - is someone who should seriously re-evaluate their attachment for the sake of their own happiness. For the majority of people, this is not an environment in which to attain intellectual enlightenment via game mechanics. You cite reading the Lord of the Rings as a means of comparing the escapism and imaginative freedoms afforded to us by literature and gaming. aj, I read the Lord of the Rings when I was 10 years old, if you want to play intellectual e-peen measuring. I'm a genius. A god amongst men. Really. FIGJAM. I am 20 years old now, making me a fine statistic for your 'younger people play more aggressively' assertion. And I was fascinated - not by the 'good guys,' but by the savage and mysterious world of the orcs - these pitiable creatures who were driven to madness and cruelty by their savage master. That was what captured my imagination, and makes me prone to playing as savage greenskins in fantasy games. I find it fun to be competitive, violent, playing a way to build a story that I never would in real life. Am I a closet psycho for finding them interesting? Am I just hiding behind the veneer of online gaming to indulge my need to bully and hurt people? Do I eat people in real life? No. Do I massacre wild animals in the name of a Dark Lord? No. Nor do I really wish extinction upon entire races for events that occured in a fictional universe's history. But the imagination you cite is the reason many people are drawn here - to take choices in ways that they never could in real life. Look at the stories people write on their profile - Belegar's being the first example that springs to mind. I do not have the opportunity to siege cities, to ruthlessly impose my will on other people because I am very aware it is morally wrong to do so, and have a strong aversion to causing people harm. Here in Illyriad, though, we are free to construct characters who take moral choices in a very different light than we do in real life. Do you still massacre animals in Illyriad, aj? Your attack score would seem to suggest so. Is that not an immoral choice also in the context of our real-world values? Maybe, in some circumstances. And yet it is a thoughtlessly accepted part of the game mechanics here. This is why I cannot ever agree that the avatars we see are 100% synonymous with real people. The loss of 200 wild dog lives from the system is, in my mind, the same as myself losing hundreds of population, or entire cities during a siege. It is meaningless here, aj, because I recognise the wisdom of the Buddhists who destroy their beautiful mandalas after painstaking hours of creating them; all we have is dust, a flash in the eye of time. That philosophy is thrown into even greater focus in a virtual game. In the age of internet censorship and continued violations of privacy, the fact that you choose to take your crusade here, and then have the unbelievable hubris to paint yourself as some intellectual martyr to the cause when people do not respond in the fashion that you wish - is actually hilarious. You make this mistake continuosly of claiming that people are attacking you directly, or your morals, which are, to be fair, sound and agreeable in terms of the real world. But that is not why they attack you, aj. They attack you because you are unwilling to accept that the manner in which you act is directly impinging on their enjoyment, and enjoyment they may take in retaliating via in-game methods - and we know full well this does not invalidate your arguments, but they, too, have no place heree. You are the footballer who claims that conceding a goal is a form of bullying, and condemns those who place value on scoring some goals because it hurts another team. You are the preacher in the concert hall who claims that his removal for shouting over the music is an attack on 'free speech.' You are all these analogies, aj, and your diversionary tactics do not fool anyone who, like me, has made the mistake of paying serious attention to your arguments. I can only surmise you do this as some kind of clever trolling attempt, or maybe a social experiment to indulge your curiosity, because it does a disservice to those who claim to be wise and true when you are so tragically misguided in your pursuits. Your eventual managing to alienate some of the most friendly and accommodating characters in Illyria is something of an achievement. I continue to watch your endeavours with bemusement. Yours, An Orcish philospher-warrior, Shûl-nak Edited by Shûl-nak - 23 Jan 2016 at 06:20 |
|
![]() |
|
Gragnog
Postmaster Joined: 28 Nov 2011 Status: Offline Points: 598 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply Posted: 23 Jan 2016 at 07:35 |
|
You know, as I must of lower intelect compared to the giant you are I will just resort to ingame systems to annoy and harrass you. What more could you expect from an agressive animal like me? Glad you are in BL. I will not have to travel so far.
|
|
|
Kaggen is my human half
|
|
![]() |
|
Post Reply |
Page <12345 11> |
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions
You
cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |