Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6738210" data-attributes="member: 16814">Then let me be perfectly clear:  I do not define lawful as 'follows the laws.'  Instead, I define lawful as 'defines self based on social constructs.' As far as confusion on this matter, I believe that when I say I do a thing, that's the thing I do.  So, when I say that I define lawful as 'defines self based on social constructs' that's exactly what I am doing.  I am not pretending something else, or lying to you, I am clearly and directly giving you my position.  If, at some later time, I appear to contradict myself, you should ask directly 'why does it seem you are contradicting yourself' and not tell me that I believe or think something that I have clearly stated I do not.I hope that I have made myself abundantly clear.  I welcome questions, I do not welcome being told what I think.I don't see the conflict here.  He defines himself as a part of a social construct.  He defines himself via his social status (a social construct).  Further, he defines himself according to the law (a social construct).  He exhibits these definitions by performing actions according to his social status (being friends with the banker, engaging in sports, acting to keep his privileged area from from undesirables) and by using the law (suing orphans out of their orphanage is not the extent of his actions, merely the one chosen to highlight his evil tendencies).  He is successful at both, and happy at both, something a chaotic person would not be.He is evil because he uses those social constructs for his personal benefit, and acts to subjugate others using those social constructs so that they provide him with more lucre and do not become a challenge to his position.[snip, stuff about good and evil, which I've stated and have nothing further to add along the lines traveled.] You should ask me what I mean instead of telling me what I mean.  No, I disagree.  Being a member of a social construct does not mean that you are, in all ways, dedicated solely to that construct.  Nothing the barrister does threatens the construct, or is opposed to it.  That he can both belong to it and use it for his own benefit doesn't mean he can't be a member of it.You seem stuck on the concept that Lawful requires overwhelming dedication to the organization.  While that fits, and zealots can be lawful, it's not necessary to be a zealot if you are lawful.The whole conversation is based on modern, Western morality.  This has all been nonsense if it isn't.  Resorting to a relativism that a system can't recognize itself as evil doesn't remove the fact that we're actually using a baseline understanding that is outside that system to judge it.If that's your underlying point, I have no response.  I had thought it was understood (especially since I explicitly said it a few posts ago) that we were using modern Western morality as our baseline.  If we're not, specify the baseline and perhaps I'll choose to re-engage.  No promises, as I may not agree with or find the new baseline particularly moving.  Also, my table isn't going to use that baseline, nor are most posters, so it's just a mental masturbation to discuss it (although, to be fair, most all of this is mental masturbation).</blockquote>

Verification