Jump to content

bonesiii

Premier Members
  • Posts

    6,611
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

Everything posted by bonesiii

  1. bonesiii

    "..."

    Brevity is the soul.
  2. There wasn't silence in that case though. I will agree that is a weak point in the theory; the other reasoning he listed is the main reason why it won. He connected dots in ways nobody else had, and then his questioning of Greg was more of a side feature, albeit one that attracts attention. However, Greg has been known to have a habit of saying "no" when members' questions are definately a "no", but a lot of times "can't answer it" when they're close or correct. So it's certainly not proof, but it can be taken as evidence. I've argued against topics that rely on this method, because Greg can simply choose not to discuss a particular topic at all if he chooses. However, that was only one part of the theory. And it wasn't silence. So still a valid piece of evidence in this case. Good question, though. One thing you should remember, BTW, is the difference between "proof" and "evidence", at least as defined in S&T. "Proof" is much stronger, but evidence merely means a possible indication, which doesn't "prove" but does give apparent credence to a theory. Proof in S&T is considered reason to call something a "fact", which is much stronger than a theory. Even fallacies can sometimes be evidence in the right context. For example, Ad Populum is the fallacy that the majority opinion must be right (in essence). If a commercial cites as evidence for its product being good that it is popular, that is not proof that you should buy it. But it can be reason to consider it -- after all, if many people like something, it's statistically more likely that you will too. So that's a case of evidence, but definately not proof. I've mentioned this idea in the Debate guide (orange link in sig in case you haven't read it), where there's at least one more example, I believe.
  3. Yep, I agree. You get the award. And congrats to Bioran too for his Truth of Karzahni theory.
  4. Thanks, Night Terror, for that suggestion -- I agree and it's been awarded! Congrats, A. I renumbered your questions, cuz "B_)" is the smily B) and I must needs have space after the paren...thesis... thesi? these?. 1) You can absolutely nominate yourself. As long as you keep in mind there's no guarantee nominations will get the award. The criterion are basically the things in the S&T rules and guidelines pinned topic about theories, so if a topic of your own looks like it fits those guidelines, you probably stand a good chance. ("You" being either "you" or anybody else that would go this route.) 2) I suppose, but if they're closed, it's hard to be sure how to deal with it in terms of awarding -- I'd have to open it, post, then close it and this would be the only place to comment on that. So, you can nominate, but it's going to be harder for that to win. 3) Sure. 4) Good question. 5) I've got a couple different things in mind for my next entry. I was thinking about a History of Gimmicks in Bionicle, since there's this misconception that gimmicks started with lightup eyes and the like. Probably either that or ELS. Or something else I haven't planned yet. But for the moment the evil homework creepeth so delays shalt chokest the life out of mine blogge. Good thing it's undead... Parenthesio? ...thesahk? ... thesoid?
  5. Sure! As long as you give credit (I'm sure you would, I just have to say it ). In what capacity? I'm not planning on really revising this anymore, but I suppose that would be cool, about the pilgrim thing. Although 6 billion is a bit much, given that it's roughly the current population of the Earth and this takes place long before now, eh? That's the fun part. Load's'a people! And if this is a long time ago... How come there is Climbing Gear, drinking problems and Mountaoin Gear Books?! Just a thought... True, lol. But comics do that all the time -- I still say 6 million is too many... Six thousand? Man, now I'm nervous. Go ahead -- and lemme know what parts draw laughs. If any. Sure, as long as you send me or post the changes (you can just email it to bonesiii@gmail.com or PM it to me). Just 'cuz I'm curious what you'd change.
  6. Today marks the third theory to recieve this award, so I thought this would be a good time to post a blog entry about it. The following is what is posted in the topic for any theory that wins this new award: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: The Gold Key to Nongu Award does not certify theory accuracy. The sponsor of the Gold Key to Nongu Award does not neccessarily endorse and/or oppose said theory. The sponsor of the Gold Key to Nongu Award remains ignorant of the exact meaning of the word "Nongu." The originator of the term "Nongu" may or may not be insane. Not available in some domes, void where prohibited. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Key to Nongu award is something I've been meaning to create in some form for years, as far back as when Ninjo was still active, but I never got around to it. Recently I decided again to make it, but for a while there were no theories that struck me as really qualifying (though I don't catch every theory, to be fair). However, in the past two weeks S&T has burst to life again, and really right now it feels like just about everything is coming together in theories. They might not end up being right, but they are still great theories (and a few have proven at least partly right!). So they deserve some sort of formal recognition. As such, this award has now been formed, and will be awarded to whomever I see fit in the future as well. If you haven't already read the topics, check out the blog sidebar list of winners! Please use comments in this blog entry to nominate theories for this award, post questions, comments, etc.
  7. NVM, ich fand es:

    http://www.bzpower.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=262496

    Sorry, but I was saying what Greg had told me ages ago, so I blame Greg. :P But I like that better, because that means conservation of mass might not apply in Bionicle. Which roxorz. :P

  8. Well now you just reminded me about the defeat of the bubble wrap, so yeah. Seriously, if we made a list of blows dealt to Survurlode and his minions lately, what would it be? Really, his only success is that every once in a while we still slow down. A little. A tad. Anyways.... True, but I was thinking about the actual intention, not the actual act. In that case, my comment is still valid. Fair enough. Hwatever you say dude. The judge is rather important. Right now, we are all making judgements on good and evil. Some judges are indifferent, other impartial. Whenever we view an act, we judge it. That effetively makes us judges (hence the name ^^). Of course, how we viw the matter relies of philosophies of individuality and POVs on the actual act. So, actualy, the judge is important in every matter, as heshe is mormaly the deciding factor. But what does heshe decide? I'm just saying, the judge doesn't actually cause the act to be good or evil -- it's the motives of the "acter" that do that. But sure, the judge is important. But not for what I was talking about. Basically, the judge doesn't determine the actual truth of the event he's judging. He just forms his own opinion and then consequences for whatever that opinion is follow. Or she. Or they, etc. Ich sehe. I guess I'm not up on my current German events enough... That's too bad. Homeschooling is proven to be effective (though it might certainly vary depending on the parent) -- I'm a case in point. I literally would not be a logician if I hadn't been homeschooled for a few years. They don't teach logic in these schools, you know; the Prof in Narnia is right on. Yep, I agree with all of that. BTW, did you mean "beliefs"? I heard a rumor once that you were homeschooled at one time or another, I juste never felt like bothering you about a petty thing like that, or worse, make it an arguement with others. Well, now I safely know for sure that you were indeed HSed. Remember, I hate typos. ~EW~ I shalt duly remember that. Thus, you typed "juste". Here there, whereeverwhere. I don't care. Rhyme not intended.
  9. Sure! As long as you give credit (I'm sure you would, I just have to say it ). In what capacity? I'm not planning on really revising this anymore, but I suppose that would be cool, about the pilgrim thing. Although 6 billion is a bit much, given that it's roughly the current population of the Earth and this takes place long before now, eh?
  10. And I'd have to see my own wording -- I believe all I said was what Greg had told me once, which is accurate in its context. :P

  11. I don't have the slightest clue which topic that was in, A. :P Linky?

  12. This isn't a complaint topic, though. It's an entry basically summing up where he stands in Bionicle. Of course it's his tastes. It's his Blog. He's not asking Lego to change everything just for him. And everything stated is subjective, not objective. I knew someone would say that, lol. Yes, it was the phrase "State of Bionicle" that confuses that issue, but he was clear about that. These are the comments in his blog entry, where we say what we think/feel in response. As I said: I'm joking with the "But", BTW. X, that is how I felt about Metru Nui too -- it was in many ways "fantasy tech", more magic than technology feeling (at least to me but I realize I'm weird 'cuz I'm a physics geek here so I know what is and is not possible with real world tech in Bionicle). Metru Nui always struck me more as a mysterious, exhilerating paradise city made totally out of this mysterious protodermis, with magical machinery than a "hi-tech metropolis" as the complainers usually characterized it. Aaaand lovin it.
  13. I've seen a few other people make this personality accusation, albeit before it was including the books. Frankly I don't think that's what it is -- I think it's that we didn't get that much characterization before, and so we often filled in the gaps with our own ideas, but now that the story is actually delving into those characters more, it isn't lining up with what we had imagined. Understandable, but also unavoidable. One good example would be Kongu's humor, which Screenguy and I once debated -- he saw Kongu as totally serious, with no sense of humor until 2006. But I was able to show that there were several hints that he did have a sense of humor, we just never saw it until now. Well, yes -- this is on purpose, because most fans prefer a quick build so they can get on to the roleplaying. Remember Bionicle tried the more complex builds with sets like the Rahi in 2001 and beyond, and they sold poorly. Technic fans largely weren't into this story-driven line, but roleplayers were, and they want sets designed to play well, more than be a super-interesting build. For that to happen, you have to make the builds somewhat formulaic. Nothing wrong with asking for that. I have agreed before that a minimal amount of such things, like a gear on one out of six Toa for example, might be a good experiment. Just remember such a thing would be a risk that likely -would- result in lower sales. And we've had in-between grounds before anyways; gears in sets that otherwise were action figury, like the Metru. Yet the gears still seem to have harmed the sales, and definately were still major complaints. That would be one of those downsides I was talking about. No way around it, so personally I don't see the point in worrying about it. It's just something you get used to, accept, because if not for the toys, the story never would have existed in any form so that fact is something we can be grateful towards. If the story neglects its purpose, though, to sell the sets, Bionicle risks going away, and then there is no story. It's not just a play company, it's a toy company. The purpose of the story, as I see it, is to provide inspiration for play, yes, but play with the toys. That's why, I think, roleplayers ended up as the main fanbase. Not that surprising really. Obviously that is never going to produce Lord of the Rings. But as long as you keep that in mind and enjoy Bionicle for what it is -- a story designed for toys -- you can enjoy it for what that means -- a story designed for fun. At least I can -- perhaps I shouldn't imply I'm speaking for all here. I dunno. But it works for me. With what goal in mind? Remember, again, the purpose has always been to sell the sets. Set design is really best done by those whose talents and experience is in that category. You point out a true downside -- the set designers aren't necessarily that great at story. But realize your suggestion would simply create a different problem, and a more serious one -- story writers aren't experts at toy design. So I don't see that this qualifies as a "trap" -- because now that the set designers have been using that expertise and research to improve the sets towards what most fans want, sales are going up. Again, that is going to affect the story to a degree. On the other hand, Greg has often said that the story team does give ideas to the set designers. Toa Lhikan is a case in point. And really, IMT the story team is doing an excellent job at taking what the set designers give them and making a fascinating, rocking fun story out of it. That's not an accurate description, IMO. In the story, never have I seen anyone "simply creat[ing masks] as [they] pleased". Vakama was the only one that could do that, and most of the time he couldn't. The one mask we saw him making, the Vahi, was a source of frustration constantly, and even that was perhaps more a curse than a blessing. Obviously Metru Nui was more tech than nature. I'm a little tired of that subject, though. In 2004 we were told that this would be the end of Bionicle, the sky is falling, etc. but Bionicle's sales went up, and now polls are saying 2005 was the worst year ever, with 2004 barely registering, and that was the year all that technology got smashed to bits and the archives were set loose, and Metru Nui became a jungle of Rahi and webs and spiders. So I don't see the argument holding any water anymore. Boxor. IMT, I don't agree with being tiptoey about technology in a story about biomechanical beings. If it makes logical sense for the characters to try to get better technology, I want to see them do it. Rather than avoid that for arbitrary reasons that are forced artificially on the story. IMT, IMT, though... Okay, what about the Kanohi? You brought those up, but the theories about how Kanohi worked before we knew were always about technology. And yet the truth turned out to be basically the "magical" physics of a material, a fantasy material that enables these powers, rather than technology using forcefields, etc. to do it as had previously been theorized. But again, it's all preference here. I like science fantasy best, so technology amongst fantasy physics appeals to me a lot, and it doesn't have to feel exactly the way 2001 did. Also, don't forget a lot of this sense of "magic" in 2001 was, again, a perception, not reality. I saw a lot of it manifesting in rumors when I joined in 2003, that surprised me because none of what these popular BZP "rumor theories" said was how I had seen 2001. For example, the idea that the Kanohi were mystical objects of spirituality, or that the Toa were mystical spirits rather than heroes with superpowers, really the whole mysticism idea. There was a mystical feel to 2001 marketing, that I enjoyed, but these material ideas of that literally being what these things were about... they weren't actually grounded in anything Bionicle had done. They were fan created concepts. And they weren't what most fans out there were apparently thinking, though that often wasn't realized or stated online at the time. There was this feeling that BZP represented the average fan, when in reality it represented the vocal minority. At least that was the sense I got in 2003 -- it's been a relatively new thing that most our active members recognize how unusual we are in the Bionicle fanbase. I.e. "coolified." Indeed -- to my tastes the Kaukau is mediocre, but the Faxon. The Faxon. Ahhh, now there's a cool design! The merely practical aspects of the Kaukau were my main complaints, and that has been primarly what has been improved (again, IMT). In essence, most of these differences are purposeful changes designed to get closer to what most fans are seen as wanting. Now, not saying it's always necessarily what they actually want -- LEGO can certainly be wrong. But this is expected, and it's a good thing, IMO, because LEGO is proving they really do listen to the fans. And, from a logician's perspective, to logic, not just assuming that because they see one post online saying something, it means that's what they should do, etc.
  14. In reverse order: I'm not sure who I'm going to interview, but I'm definately going to try to get somebody soon. With Binky's departure, ironically Survurlode was dealt a big blow just before that has led to a much better server. But the past few weeks Survurlode's started to make a comeback. I was trying to get ahold of Gollaga, but he's an elusive guy. I wanted to ask him what he knows about the One Refresh, and also about his favorite brand of cheese puffs. If I can't get him, I might be able to find the Orca. Of course, I don't speak whale, so... yeah. It is a way of life, a way that has gone on for centuries. It has been held as a way to define the richness and prosperity of the families as long as it has gone on, and those with the least number are seen as weaker beings and they view it as simple twists of fate. So, nothing other than a better way can remove the pagan ways that they hold onto in their system. Well, it's hard to tell if that is simply what they say, or even consciously think, and deep down they still resent it. Obviously it would be much different than for you and I, though, so that's more of a guess than anything. Telepathy would be the only way to know for sure, probably. Ich sehe. I guess I'm not up on my current German events enough... That's too bad. Homeschooling is proven to be effective (though it might certainly vary depending on the parent) -- I'm a case in point. I literally would not be a logician if I hadn't been homeschooled for a few years. They don't teach logic in these schools, you know; the Prof in Narnia is right on. Yep, I agree with all of that. BTW, did you mean "beliefs"? Well, I agree wholeheartedly that the circumstances matter, but I don't see the judge as that relevant -- basically because I'm talking about the "actual truth" sort of thing. If someone chooses an action for selfish reasons, it might be that no "judge" can recognize it or know it, but that doesn't change the action. Differences in how some people or cultures "judge" can change the circumstances, though. Like with the shrunken heads example, that obviously changes how you act, and it can change what you might consider selfish. I assume that society would pressure you to feel guilty for resenting the elitism of those with the shrunken heads. Under those circumstances, it would be possible to hold grudges for selfish reasons, even though the root cause isn't the fault of that person. But it's the circumstances that define that. If someone stands up against that discrimination for selfless reasons; to stand up for justice (which applies to far more than just that someone), a "judge" in that culture would appeal to the tradition as a basis to say "you are committing evil here". But that judge would quite simply be wrong. As far as philosophy, I think we covered that already well enough. So, just a simple law cannot mean anything to it. Circumstance, yes. Defying the speed limit to ram another car in the fender obviously is evil and against the law, but it was the intent that caused the person to defy the limit i the first place. But defying the limit to get to the hospotal in an unmarked car? No. Yep, I agree. Again, that's basically what it comes down to; the circumstance. Not sure I agree with the idea that the law "cannot mean anything to it" though. The laws do change the circumstance, although they ideally shouldn't. I agree with the quote from Thomas of Jeffer though. Law isn't justice -- what is it though? Well, it's just what the elites of one society happen to decide they want everybody to act. Even in a "democracatic republic" like America (not to get too political here though ) It's abstract, and often not rooted in real practicality or logic, heh. I look forward to it.
  15. You're very kind, Lemoru, thanks. :)

  16. I don't look at it that way, Janus -- one of the things I bring up in complaint topics all the time is the difference between each of our individual tastes and the tastes of the majority; i.e. between what each of us wishes LEGO could do, and what LEGO objectively should do to please the majority. It's not surprising, unusual, or IMO anything to ashamed of that you aren't happy with the current direction. The old cliche that you can't please everybody, basically -- it's true. Many of the things LEGO's moved towards now are opposites of what a lot of BZPers prefer. BR's article a while back talked about this quite well. The question is, to me, though: Is whether one fan is happy or not indicative of the current state of Bionicle itself? No, I don't think so -- it's more about the "relationship" between Bionicle and that one fan. Bionicle itself is not for any one individual. If it was, ardent fans of scifi and technology like me wouldn't be happy if Bionicle appealed to a fan of pure fantasy, and same idea with a balance, etc. So there's not that much to say in agreement/disagreement with this entry, because it's clearly what you prefer. You are entitled to prefer that. But. So all I can really do is give my take on these issues, rather than your opinion of them per se. Comics -- I had the same problems with not getting the comics, BTW, but that's beside the point (unless that wasn't just us...). I frankly think this "the story is all in the books" thing is more of an illusion simply because 1) the books are there now whereas they weren't before, 2) the books used to be just resumming-up of what was in the comics, but around the end of 2004-2005 they started to take off as their own works of art, and 3) Different artists, different content, different characters, different sets and everybody's own likes and dislikes of those things affects our perception of the comic quality itself. In other words, I have seen the comics as "shallow" and all about fighting all along. That's what comics do, and just pick up the first three and look at what they're about. There's virtually no character depth; the Toa Mata were just archetypes (as many have commented for years) being put into situations where they had to fight. The main differences were in style and presentation. By their nature, comics must be shallow, because they are so short, and also by their nature, they must be very visual, which requires battles and that sort of thing. But your perception is your perception, and nothing I can say is going to change that. My point is more that I see a trend in who agrees with you -- it is usually among people who do prefer the feel and style of the older Bionicle. You say it's not about those things. I'm not so sure -- maybe not consciously, but among the ardent fans of the newer stuff that I see posting out there on BZP, I see them getting everything from the newer comics that you and I got from the older ones. (And frankly I have gotten a lot more from the newer stuff than many of the members saying things like what you said.) I think it is more perception than reality. Hate to break it to you, J, but the comics have always been for that purpose. And if you pay attention to the posts of those who preferred the original comics, you see them commenting on how it made the toys look better, and made them look cool. There was a recent post by Kohran, to cite an example, in the poll about the comics artists that captured that feeling perfectly. The comics, storyline, books, everything have always been marketing for toys. Sounds harsh, but there are advantages to that. For one, it makes the writers work with what they have, rather than bring in random new characters on a whim that come off as Deus ex Machina and we know ahead of time that those are the pieces on the chessboard. Of course, there are also disadvantages, most of which you covered. I don't see it as a sensitive spot at all -- I see it as another perception thing. Frankly the most posts I've seen about characters being archetypes have been comments on the Toa Mata/Nuva. It's the same rarer group that is seeing them as unique characters. It also probably has a lot to do with what other story franchises we're each used to and thus what we see as cliche and what we don't. It was with the newer characters that I see an increase in characterization. Yes, that is mostly through the books, but prior to the books we didn't get it at all in the comics; we got archetypes. You had the temper tantrum incarnate, the cold ice Toa, the calm but powerful water toa, the quiet guy who disliked bright sunlight, etc. They were basically molded after their element in terms of personality, which is by definition highly archetypal. In 2001 I saw it that way, yes. In 2002 and 2003, though, it was just the same plot being recycled. "Should we work together? Should we not?" I didn't get a sense of "living" out of that. I got a sense of, frankly, boredom. A sense that the story team didn't have any more ideas on where characters can go, who they can be, what their conflicts can be, etc. Thankfully that changed in 2004 and beyond... But that wasn't why I quoted this passage -- what I just want to point out is the word "interesting", which is subjective. Again, it's a perception based on your preferences. To someone else, like me, they have been much more interesting characters. The theme of the darkness inside in 2005 for example was frankly the deepest Bionicle had ever had, far deeper than 2001-2003 "Should we work together?" That's my perception -- and it isn't necessarily reality either. My point is more that it has more to do with our interests than anything Bionicle is actually doing. The Piraka are about the true nature of evil, basically what I was talking about in my blog entry about good and evil recently -- they really don't give a flying ice bat about anybody but themselves, and in the end that came back to bite them. They enjoy hurting others, they do whatever it takes for #1. Thus, no matter how much they may pretend to be on each others' side, no matter how much they act like a team, in the end they will each backstab the other whenever it's most advantageous. Even the act of betrayal itself can be a false teamwork maneuver, as with Hakann and Thok when they stole Brutaka's power. Running out of time here -- but when I compare that to the Toa Nuva... well frankly "Should we work together or not" is a little shallow. It was fine for its time, don't get me wrong, and sure, it's a good lesson to draw as well. But there came a point when they were splitting up yet again despite just proving that teamwork is a good idea, when I had to wonder, do these guys have brains in their heads? I had to roll my eyes a lot during those years. And out of time for now. More later.
  17. Nah man, Greg talks about that sorta thing all the time. Just don't tell us anything about 'em. TL, don't tempt him.
  18. That doesn't need an entry, man. It's simple. Glowing noses, when red, enable a deer to blend in amongst the christmas trees that grow in the North Pole, since their fruit resembles a glowing red ornament. That can be argued, because "philosophy" is one of those light and fluffy words that can mean just about whatever. But I think of it more as behavior; what you do, related to your mindset and reasons for doing it. If you claim to have the loftiest philosophy of nonviolence in the world but lash out in sheer selfish anger during a temper tantrum and kill somebody, it's your deed that matters. Of course, you could claim temporary insanity, XD. Note "general" viewpoint. It does not mean just one's personal preference in the definition betwix good and evil at all, but rather a general standing on the matter. Yes, all of these definately can apply. But notice that they do refer to a point of view. Remember in situations like with the quote Omi provided, it is a "mass point of view" that's at work, so it doesn't have to be personal only. I think it's important to point out that no philosophy can change the fact that some actions are motivated by selfish reasons and others by selfless reasons. They can dress those up and disguise them, and certainly many do, but not change that basic fact. On that at least I'm pretty sure everybody agrees, yes. Right -- it turns right and wrong into a popularity contest, which is very dangerous. Hitler is the case in point. In essence, it relies on an Ad Populum logical fallacy. Most people might, for example, believe that bleeding a diseased patient is good medical help, when in fact it is counterproductive. Or with Hitler most people might support his hatred towards Jews and other "undesirables" at the time (and this was often argued by surviving Nazi war criminals). There's a big difference between "crime" and "evil", though. Crime is what goes against the laws that the country in question happens to have on the books. In my town, for example, there's a rather odd law against riding bikes on sidewalks, even on busy streets. So people who have been obeying that law have been hit by cars, naturally. That's a great example of a time when the law is the problem, not the "criminal". (The law dates before cars, but legislators have been lazy and haven't gotten rid of it.) There's nothing selfish about taking common sense precautions to keep yourself (and those in the cars!) safe by riding on the sidewalk in dangerous areas (slowly enough to not hit pedestrians, of course). So it's an important distinction that for "crime" to be evil, there must be a better choice. The robber that holds up a convenience store could have, in the vast majority of cases, got a job and earned money the honest way. That act of crime is done for selfish reasons; laziness and carelessness towards others leading to a desire to "get rich quick" at others' expense. Thus that action IS evil. If, on the otherhand, there truly was no choice, like if the robber's family was taken hostage by someone else and threatened with execution unless he robbed this place, then it's less clear. Going with this hypothetical all the way, if there really was no way out for the robber, then robbing in that instance was not evil. Another example would be soldiers stealing a car in street battle for battle purposes. Same sort of idea with heroes; if a hero kills an enemy when there was a better way to incapacitate them without risking their escape, getting information from them, etc. then killing them is an "evil" choice, in essence. This is why the Toa "do not kill", yet they did kill the Morbuzahk King Root. Again, if they truly have no choice, then it is not IMO evil. Take this in. In some places in the world, the person with the most shrunken heads gets the bride; the the bigger kahuna who runs a crime gang gets the cut; the one with the more kills gets the prize. These are not "points of view," these are necessities forced upon them that evonled into a class and system of sociology. Well, it can be argued that that is the definition of "point of view". Just not an individual POV, a "mass POV". A societal POV. Which is usually what people mean when they say g&e are POVs. These can all be translated in a way to reveal the philosophies buried within. The definition of evil will of course be the opposite of that of good, but still, what is a definition if the two are just a way of life, and therefor a philosophy? Well, I think you're missing a key part of the equation. In the examples you listed, you have to pay attention to conflict, since that's where any question of good and evil come in. With the shrunken head thing (wherever that is, man ), what do those with the least shrunken heads think? Do they see practical reasons this idea is seized upon by the society? Or is it arbitrary, selfish on the part of those with the most shrunken heads? (Dude, this example is just weird. ) I'm not even talking consciously, per se -- they might consciously accept the unfortunate situation but deep down they feel that it is wrong. IMO. With the crime gang, the conflict is obvious. Think of that as like TSO. There's conflict boiling everywhere among the DH, hatred towards him, etc. which you don't see among the Toa (not to those extremes, though). They are used to it, but that doesn't mean it isn't harming them. It is. The more kills means there are victims involved -- again, the selfish aspect is an ironclad fact amongst all this that isn't changed by majority opinion or philosophy. I don't see that it changes anything. But it is how a lot of people approach the issue, yes. Really, though, it seems like what you're picking up on most is individual POV versus mass POV. Both are still POVs, so neither can override the absolute definitions of good and evil that I mentioned. Now there's a good question. Well, it's still true in that case that you would have a choice (assuming you spoke German ) of attending a school of relative quality, so I don't think the "choiceless" aspect can be applied. There is a concept of "letting the fault lie with others". The safe choice is to obey that law. But that one is debatable -- if you were dealing with a school of indoctrination, say if this took place during Nazi Germany, and you were a Jew... Well, firstly you'd want to get out of there if you could... but you get the idea. It would basically depend on the situation. Okay, but remember the selfish/selfless thing. What would the motivations be for choosing this? It would depend on a lot of different factors, and that would, to me, indicate whether it was wrong or right. BTW, technically, yes, you would commit a crime merely because you broke a law. But that doesn't necessarily mean it would be wrong. And let's not forget parents are as much a factor here as the child. If it was merely the child's decision (just pretend here ), heshe would be putting his parents in danger, at least of legal action. That would be arguably selfish. But if it was the parent's decision to take the risk to better prepare their child for life, that would be arguably selfLESS, because they willingly take on the risk for the benefit of someone else. See the diff? If, hypothetically, you could homeschool yourself totally, then it's harder to judge. If you harm nobody, literally, by risking it, then arguably you aren't being selfish by doing what is logically best for your education, which you can then use later in life to help others. On the other hand, if by doing so you cause problems for people just trying to do their jobs in the government, are you then being selfish? You picked an excellent example of a gray area. There's no doubt that law would be flawed, yes. But the idea of letting the fault lie with the lawmakers can come into play here. I think it depends on how harm would be judged to be done to you by being forced to go to a normal school. And that could vary quite widely.
  19. Plus animals can be trained to do good or evil tasks without direct commands, just out of habit. Attack dogs vs. rescue dogs, etc.

  20. GB -- Well, that's sort of like the robots in some ways -- like horses being killed in old wars. Was the horse evil? Highly unlikely. With animals it's not so much about good vs. evil but about whether the animal is being used by evil, like a tool. But then, in Bionicle it's not that simple since some animals are intelligent.

  21. EW -- I tried, but my comp freezes up every time. Dunno why.

  22. I wanna get back to you later on your whole post, EW, but real quick before I can't see anymore and must stumble up to bed -- One of the things I've said often on the subject of good and evil is that for something to be truly evil, there IS an element of choice involved. This usually comes up about Toa not killing. Basically, if there TRULY is "no choice" for the criminal, then what he does can't really be considered evil. But in reality, the vast majority of criminals do have other options and they DO have a choice, although admittedly not the easier choice. Basically what I mean is sometimes the law is what's the problem, but usually there IS a choice involved. But to do this subject justice I'll have to spend more time on it tommorrow.
  23. Okay, makes sense. Certainly his quote is a lot more eloquent for the situation than my blog entry. My point is more the people that say good and evil are "only" POVs; that is what I'm mainly disagreeing with. Because really it both is and isn't. Just depends.
  24. I guess, GB. :P But as I said in replies in the blog, there's a difference between a tool like a gun and a programmed robot -- if it's programmed for good, it is (arguably) good. But gray areas there be.

  25. In FFVIII, basically there is Esthar, Galbadia, and SeeD. Around 20 years previous to the game's events, Esthar was being ruled by an evil sorceress named Adel and she wanted to expand her power and also seek out successors (young females she can pass her powers too). Galbadia in a sense revolted against them and protected the young girls. A man named Laguna ousted Adel from power and he became the new leader of Esthar and hid the country from existence (therefore becoming good). Now fast forward to the game. Galbadia is now the bad guys, and being lead by President Deling and also under the influence of Sorceress Edea (who was being possessed by Ultimecia from the future). When Edea gained control of herself, Galbadia went back to being normal. SeeD was "placed" in opposition, even though they can help anyone. They are somewhat a neutral group doing the right thing. So even though the evil leaders wanted personal gain, the sides they controlled were just doing what she wanted and believing in what they were told. Esthar was originally evil, but became good. Galbadia was good, but became evil, and back to good. SeeD actually had their own civil dispute during one part of the game, but are good up to the end. -Omi Okay - I'm still a leeeetle confused (), but it sounds mostly sensible to me. But when you say "good", do you mean from the POV of the game? Or do you mean the selflessness thing I was talking about? And I'm not sure how the guy that gave the quote fits in. Regardless, it sounds a lot like real history -- countries at different times behaving in radically different ways, different allegiances, and certainly different levels of morals. A little to complex to just go "they good guys", heh. Still, if for the moment one side is being more selfless, then objectively (for the moment ) that side is the most good.
×
×
  • Create New...