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: 2157721" data-attributes="member: 4937">In which case, you've changed the question enough that is now something which might reflect something about the values that the person held, and hense might be used to classify people according to the group that they chose.   What's different, besides the fact that this is an issue more people consdier trivial, is that the group's simply aren't as explicitly labeled.For example, one person might argue that it makes the most intellectual sense to follow the team that wins the most.   We could label those the 'pragmatists'.   Another might argue that it makes the most intellectual sense to follow the 'home team', and we could label those the 'loyalists'.    Another might argue that it makes the most intellectual sense to follow the team that is the most popular where they are at, and we could label those the 'followers'.   Some might argue that it makes no sense to follow any one sports team at all, and we could label those the 'oppurtunists'.  And so forth.   In each case, the answer tells us something about the person.   Maybe it doesn't tell us much, because I still argue that most people aren't such fanatical sports fans that thier positions on sports are the most controlling factor in thier lives.Yes, and that is a 'sports' position which tells us something about the character of the sports fan.So clearly those people don't equate 'best' with 'winniest'.I don't see how that disagrees with what I said.Sometimes the heart governs then mind, and sometimes it is the other way around.   But it would be extremely surprising if they had absolutely no influence over the other.   For my theory to be incorrect, it would have to be the case that the answer people gave to the above question was not at all influenced by thier own preferences - intellectual or emotional - for a particularly philosophical outlook.   If it doesn't have perfect correllation, well, so what?   I only argued that it had better correllation than asking people to self identify thier alignment.I think I've answered this already.   It doesn't have to follow.  This is your analogy.   I'm the one pointing out that things that are true for sports teams don't necessarily hold true for moralities.And again, 'best' here is very different than 'correct' or 'intellectually superior'.   If you asked people what the best team in the NFL was, you'd get several answers.   But if you asked people what team it made the most intellectual sense to support, you'd get a very different answer and often from the very same people.   For most people, these answers would be different.  I would argue that the Patriots were the best team, but that you should (if you are a football fan) support the team who had the player's you found most admirable as individuals.   I for instance support Tampa Bay, because I find Derrick Brooks to be an admirable man.  But because morals and ethics aren't the same thing as sports teams, if you ask people what the best, correct, and most intellectually superior moral or ethical system was, you'd typically get the same answer for each question from most people.  That's why I say you are making a false analogy.   There are things that the two things have in common, but for the assertion you are trying to make, the two things do not have in common the critical attribute.No, I'm assuming that not having a strong set of beliefs about morality is itself a moral position.No, I'm assuming that not having a strong set of beliefs about professional football is a sports position which probably has nothing to do with the core tenants by which you define yourself (although it could).We are moving here into an area that I freely admit that D&D doesn't model well and that's the degree of scruples with which a person holds to his own preferred alignment position.   I would simply agree that no one with a non-nuetral alignment position is able to live up to thier standards of thier beliefs perfectly, and that some live up to those standards better than others, but surely sympathy and preference for a particular alignment system - even one you can't manage to live up to yourself - surely says something about how a person defines themselves.Sure.  Woo Pig Sooooey!  Go hogs!  The question then becomes, why does that person continue to support the team?   But a better question would be why should we obscure the question by discussing the issue at hand primarily through the means of an imperfect and obscuring metaphor?</blockquote>

Verification