Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 379173" data-attributes="member: 812">Re: Re: Re: (Long) Evil vs. Vile vs. Mature - are they the same?I notice that there's still a need for the vile, though, Sigil. I guess I've been assuming that you are opposed to the notion that evil has to be vile. I don't think you are, inasmuch as evil is ALWAYS vile, whether physically or morally. Vile isn't always evil -- intestines aren't evil but they are certainly vile.Would it be correct to say that what you're opposed to is the explicit portrayal of the vile? Accepted that yes, down in his dungeon the bad guy is doing truly vile things, but how much of that do we really need to show? Is that the question you're asking here?I think it's gotten a bit confused with notions of poor marketing, immature gamers and Monte's impending knighthood.To speak more philosophically, I have to say that your rhyme:conflates evil with sin, and rejection with hatred. I don't have to hate evil in order to reject it. And I don't have to consider something a sin in order to consider it evil. Heck, I don't have to consider something evil in order to reject it.Did I cover all the possibilities there? There's a difference between rejecting something because it's a sin and rejecting it because it's unhealthy, causes unhappiness and interferes with my ability to love. None of the latter require me to hate the item in question, nor do they lose their potency by familiarity. Indeed, the more intimately I understand such things, the more completely I will reject them.Just to keep offering an alternate philosophy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="barsoomcore, post: 379173, member: 812"] [b]Re: Re: Re: (Long) Evil vs. Vile vs. Mature - are they the same?[/b] I notice that there's still a need for the vile, though, Sigil. I guess I've been assuming that you are opposed to the notion that evil has to be vile. I don't think you are, inasmuch as evil is ALWAYS vile, whether physically or morally. Vile isn't always evil -- intestines aren't evil but they are certainly vile. Would it be correct to say that what you're opposed to is the explicit portrayal of the vile? Accepted that yes, down in his dungeon the bad guy is doing truly vile things, but how much of that do we really need to show? Is that the question you're asking here? I think it's gotten a bit confused with notions of poor marketing, immature gamers and Monte's impending knighthood. To speak more philosophically, I have to say that your rhyme: conflates evil with sin, and rejection with hatred. I don't have to hate evil in order to reject it. And I don't have to consider something a sin in order to consider it evil. Heck, I don't have to consider something evil in order to reject it. Did I cover all the possibilities there? There's a difference between rejecting something because it's a sin and rejecting it because it's unhealthy, causes unhappiness and interferes with my ability to love. None of the latter require me to hate the item in question, nor do they lose their potency by familiarity. Indeed, the more intimately I understand such things, the more completely I will reject them. Just to keep offering an alternate philosophy. [/QUOTE]

Verification