Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3291090" data-attributes="member: 4937">Uhh.  Ok.  I suppose we are not going to get much out of talking to one another, because you didn't have any reasons was a thesis and I thought proceded to defend it.  If you don't percieve that, I'm sorry, but at this point I doubt I can do much about it.I think you are making a straw man argument out of Hussar's position.  Hussar posited that in this case the remorse came about only because the act was evil and the woodcutter was good.No, I'm simply allowing that there are other cases which are different, in which another act wouldn't be evil, or another person wouldn't be good, or another person even if good wouldn't be perceptive, or whatever.  It doesn't follow that because I agree that in other cases that the presence of remorse doesn't imply evil, that I agree with you that in this case the presence of remorse doesn't imply the evilness of the act.  That's what I call a non sequitur.Pardon me, you are right.  I just got tired of writing 'evil' and substituted something along the lines of 'a great evil'.  Read it as that.I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.  Evil is so far as I'm concerned the absence of good in the actions of beings possessing a will.  It remains evil whether or not anyone judges it evil.I wish you'd stop with the amatuer psychology and the pointless allegations.  I can reply to anything you say with the accusation that you are just hoping to score rhetorical points with the crowd.  It is a blanket argument having no bearing on this, and it doesn't get us anywhere.No I didn't.  I know you aren't asserting the same thing.  I asserted that you didn't provide in that particular post any points of rebuttle that contridicted Hussar's position.  I asserted that your thesis was not supported, and went on to say that it wasn't supported because Hussar could accept the points of your rebuttle as true without changing his position.   this is not nearly the same thing as saying that you and Hussar had the same thesis.Which would be great if that's what I had said.I don't think that that is true.  Hussar wrote in the original post:It was for that which I commended Hussar as someone that understood the Paladin's world view in a way that I find rather rare.I could respond to the rest, but it would be pointless because it proceeds from what I percieve as such a radically false premise, namely, that by Hussar's stance (and mine) the Paladin doesn't need to atone and that by the rules the Paladin does not need to atone. I think the rules make very clear, with what you say is unfortunate langauge, that the Paladin needs to attone.  You say that this doesn't follow with the ordinary understanding of what good and evil are, which is fine, because we aren't dealing with ordinary understanding but the understanding of a Paladin.  It would be surprising if the ordinary understanding was the same as a Paladins.  As Hussar said, everyone else just feels bad.</blockquote>

Verification