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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MerakSpielman" data-source="post: 1306160" data-attributes="member: 7464">You certainly haven't offended me. You seem to have a clear notion as to what will get the thread closed, and you're not crossing the line. In fact, you sound like somebody with whom I could have a good discussion. Too many people - especially online - don't know how to have a polite conversation about their beliefs.  I respect that! I'm gonna discuss it with you anyway, though. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />You've just pretty much defined the mission of science and the scientific method. I don't think that's what you were going for, though. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  Logically, by your argument, all seekers of truth will arrive (and, historically, have arrived) at the same destination, regardless of who they were and from what culture they originated. If this is what you believe, you are much closer to my religion than I originally thought. However, the point should still be debated (a trademark of me when I get in these discussions is that I will often argue against things that I believe. One of my beliefs is that I cannot truly understand my position on any matter unless I am capable of arguing both for and against it.).  Logically, by your assertation, two people born on opposite sides of the planet at the same time, and devoting themselves to knowing the ultimate Truth will always end up comeing to the same conclusions after a lifetime of religious/philosophical devotion. I must observe that this can be shown to not be the case. Unless you mean - and I hope you do not - that all seekers of truth will eventually find your specific religion and recognise its inherant value and then stop seeking. You're probably right... And I probably shouldn't have responded, but I find these discussions fun... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> You're right. Nobody can role-play a character who always follows their alignment to the letter. I would argue, though, that it is possible to play a character who predominantly behaves properly for a particular alignment. On a slightly different note, it's interesting that a paladin who saves villages from monsters for a living is good. If one time he deliberately destroys a village he becomes evil. On the other hand, a Blackguard who destroys villages for a living is evil. If one time he deliberately saves a village from a monster, I think we would all agree that he is not in danger of becoming good. Why the double standard? This argument seems to assume that civilized society is somehow inherently good. I believe certain societies can be evil and still thrive. Societies exist like living organisms - they consume what they need for growth and survival, they eliminate threats to their existance, and they form mutually beneficial relationships with other society/organisms if the "other" is not currently a threat. In this respect, all socities and civilizations on earth (er, I mean in D&D worlds. yeah, that's it!) behave exactly the same, regardless of the ideology of the inhabitants.</blockquote>

Verification