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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kahuna Burger" data-source="post: 1292184" data-attributes="member: 8439">No. It doesn't. You can boil it down to meaning that, and you obviously have choosen to, but that doesn't have anything to do with what Barsoomcore is actually saying. I find that trying to tell people what they are really saying is a pretty good sign that you are not understanding (ornot willing to consider) where they are coming from. And that attitude towards the exchange of ideas "saddens me deeply".thats not reality, thats opinion. A commonly held opinion, and a very useful basis for a criminal justice system, but its just an opinion. Of course if by "responibility" you mean only "moral blame" its fine... not relevant to what's being talked about here, but fine.... This reminds me a lot of the kind of conversations that were going around after columbine and not a little of 9-11. No one ever argued against the idea that the people who directly took action were responsible for their own actions. But it was almost impossible to have a conversations putting things in context, or discussing what could have been done differently in an imediate or historical sense to prevent the tragedies, because any attempt to do so was shouted out by the self righteous cry of "Don't blame the victims! no one made those people do violence! They bear all the responsibility! They choose! There's nothing else to discuss!" Somehow its very hard to seperate causality and contribution and prevention from the idea of BLAME. You are talking about Blame. And in a society obsessed with blame, the philosophy put forth here does boil down to blaming the victim, or sharing the blame. But we're discussing the idea of a society that thinks differently than we do*. And to take that idea, filter it through your actual philosophy and spit it back in an adversarial form isn't saying anything about how that theoretical society would actual function or where they lay blame.*I don't know if I could fully get into this philosophy myself. But I understand where is is coming from and going. I've had the advantage of understanding from a very young age that some people - a lot of people really - think differently than I do, and that they are still sane, still people, not lying about how they percieve things and that I CANNOT tell them "what you think you believe is really believing this instead, because that is the thought process I would have to take to get me from where I am to where you are".To assume as you seem to that it is outside of normal human mental functioning to hold ideas as a society that you don't agree with is, well, presumptuous. To further ignore the effects of other senient species, magic and active gods in what societal ethics could be possible is just uncreative.In answer to the orriginal question, I don't think its so much that a vanilla fantasy setting would be changed by the inclusion of the idea of war as a neccassary evil, as that the setting would have to reconsidered as a whole to make that idea reasonable and integrated with other ideas. Kahuna Burger</blockquote>

Verification