Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7411055" data-attributes="member: 5142">I am clarifying my original statements. If you agree, then we can move on. In general, the use of &quot;more&quot; and &quot;less&quot; are almost unavoidable as terms of discourse in this discussion of agency, but I find that these arguments are essentially qualitative arguments couched in quantitative language. It's about like attempting somehow to quantify &quot;Which country has more liberty: US or Canada?&quot; It's a question attempting to quantify a more abstract notion with differing moral values about what qualifies as &quot;liberty.&quot; But my acquiesence of using the terms &quot;more&quot; and &quot;less&quot; is more or less (no pun intended) an admission that these are almost unescapable when discussing what amount to moral values, principles, and such in the context of gaming. No, I dislike you falsely reading &quot;vinegar&quot; into my statements. Except I don't, which again is you misreading things into my statements that are not there. Look, my own work is primarily religious in nature. For the last 10 years and counting, I have been surrounded by seminarians, priests, and religious scholars. It tends to flavor a lot of my language, but in this case, Bedrockgames introduced the language of religion in the discourse when describing the discussion in terms of religious conversion. Though I agree with Bedrockgames that this sentiment tends to crop a lot, I also find that the reverse to also be true, namely that a sort of religious fervor is present not only for &quot;conversion,&quot; but also for any perceived &quot;heresy&quot; to the norms. This is not self-righteousness. This is not vinegar. This is not anger. It's simply a descriptive observation of our gaming culture. But I certainly will &quot;have a bit of anger&quot; when mistakenly people admonish me at length for behaviors and attitudes that I did not perform. Note to Self: In the future remember that gratitude is owed to one who prefaces insults of character with one sentence of general agreement with no substantive follow-through.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7411055, member: 5142"] I am clarifying my original statements. If you agree, then we can move on. In general, the use of "more" and "less" are almost unavoidable as terms of discourse in this discussion of agency, but I find that these arguments are essentially qualitative arguments couched in quantitative language. It's about like attempting somehow to quantify "Which country has more liberty: US or Canada?" It's a question attempting to quantify a more abstract notion with differing moral values about what qualifies as "liberty." But my acquiesence of using the terms "more" and "less" is more or less (no pun intended) an admission that these are almost unescapable when discussing what amount to moral values, principles, and such in the context of gaming. No, I dislike you falsely reading "vinegar" into my statements. Except I don't, which again is you misreading things into my statements that are not there. Look, my own work is primarily religious in nature. For the last 10 years and counting, I have been surrounded by seminarians, priests, and religious scholars. It tends to flavor a lot of my language, but in this case, Bedrockgames introduced the language of religion in the discourse when describing the discussion in terms of religious conversion. Though I agree with Bedrockgames that this sentiment tends to crop a lot, I also find that the reverse to also be true, namely that a sort of religious fervor is present not only for "conversion," but also for any perceived "heresy" to the norms. This is not self-righteousness. This is not vinegar. This is not anger. It's simply a descriptive observation of our gaming culture. But I certainly will "have a bit of anger" when mistakenly people admonish me at length for behaviors and attitudes that I did not perform. Note to Self: In the future remember that gratitude is owed to one who prefaces insults of character with one sentence of general agreement with no substantive follow-through. [/QUOTE]

Verification