Real Money Auction House RMAH for poe
" You'd think someone so on their high horse about morality would refrain from lying. I don't have to "think" that you have no idea what you're talking about. I believe in looking at the evidence, and the evidence brings me to one conclusion: You pretend to know a whole lot, but you actually know not a whole lot. You use a lot of big words and references - and you use them wrong. For example, calling Les Miserables a religious movie is the kind of thing that makes me not take you seriously. Educate yourself, for crying out loud. You haven't heard of one of the most famous pieces of literature ever written? (Not to mention, one of the most famous international musicals... and several movies...) I'm a ignorant ethnocentric American and I've read it, for crying out loud. By the way, I explicitly agreed that a communities values are important (I also said that those values should be based on something, not blindly followed. After all, it was heretical for Galileo to DARE believe that the universe didn't revolve around the Earth.) (By the way, as anyone with a "Degree in ethics" (as you referred to originally) will tell you in a heartbeat, ethos (community values of a particular area, country, nationality, ethnic group, etc) aren't the same thing as ethics.) QED. It's Latin, look it up. While you're at it, look up heresy. You also misused Universal Law. We can all agree that murder is immoral and should be illegal - "Murder is bad" is therefore something to which the principle of Universal Law could be applied. Since obviously there is not consensus here, nor is paying money for in-game goods prohibited across the spectrum of human society, it has nothing to do with anything. What does the Patriot Act have to do with it? Yes, deregulating marijuana - another thing which is "against the rules" for no discernible purpose. You know, kind of like it was against the law 40 years ago for a black person to marry a white person? (or, maybe you don't know, clearly not being from the US...) Just because something is law doesn't make it moral. By the way, I didn't go anywhere. I just ignored your posts for awhile, for the same reason I ignore xxnoob's for the most part: There's no point in trying to have a rational discussion with someone who's only comeback is "You're stupid" or "You're morally bankrupt". That's called a strawman, you know. |
|
" QED? Page 34... just sayin' If you have account problems please [url="http://www.pathofexile.com/support"]Email Support[/url]
| |
" Yes, but that was you, not him. :) |
|
" I require quote's of my lie's before I will accept your statement. hehe. " lol, I like how you dont think, It really speaks colours about where you get your opinions. " Ive heard of Les miserables before, but the moment you mentioned "religion", (not that anyone had swayed me into watching it.) "after the Bishop "redeems" him" - AgentDave I switched off listening to you about the movie. " Fine, if you are dead certain it isnt about religion then Ill take a look at it. " Hold up.. You are going against "This specific community", with argueing for a RMAH. They are based on the dev's vague statements, "If we are fools to have alittle faith in that, then so be it".... Why cant you accept that?.(And I get how your after the logical most thought out reasoning to the RMAH so it may benefit PoE or player's who have less time.) Why must I/we have to defend something we came here to enjoy without an RMAH?, Does the community or the dev's have to specificly give you a ultimatium for you to accept that?. Why not just ask for a POLL to be taken. Does it really matter how logical the Dev's/community's reasoning is when we are more than happy to accept a broken system and work with it? These are values(They dont need to be logical(Even though it would be nice)), noone including yourself said the community isnt allowed to do things the way they want regardless of rationality. As bitching about it has become a loop where you cant get past the impressive logic your going with, which falls flat against a group of people wanting to step back to the older system. (Maybee some here, dont mind. Thus I would like to get a poll) ---- Fine we will look up, correctly the definitions.... " The phrase "quod erat demonstrandum" is a translation into Latin from the Greek "ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι" (hoper edei deixai; abbreviated as ΟΕΔ). Translating from the Latin into English yields, "what was to be demonstrated"; however, translating the Greek phrase ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι produces a slightly different meaning. Since the verb "δείκνυμι" also means to show or to prove, a better translation from the Greek would read, "what was required to be proved." The phrase was used by many early Greek mathematicians, including Euclid[4] and Archimedes. I replyed asking what was ment by it, considering there is two interpretations...He never replyed. And he used a quote of mine out of context(leaving the following two words out of the origonal sentance) to potentialy draw a meaning outside what was said. " Heresy (from Greek αἵρεσις, which originally meant "choice") is an accusation levied against members of another group which has beliefs that conflict with those of the accusers. It is usually used to discuss violations of religious or traditional laws or codes, although it is used by some political extremists to refer to their opponents. It carries the connotation of behaviours or beliefs likely to undermine accepted morality and cause tangible evils, damnation, or other punishment. In some religions, it also implies that the heretic is in alliance with the religion's symbol of evil, such as Satan or chaos. It is distinct from apostasy, which is the formal denunciation of one's religion, principles or cause, and blasphemy, which is irreverence toward religion. The founder or leader of a heretical movement is called a heresiarch, while individuals who espouse heresy or commit heresy, are known as heretics. Heresiology is the study of heresy. "it carries the connotation of behaviours or beliefs likely to undermine accepted morality and cause tangible evils, damnation, or other punishment" Fits you like a glove. " In law and ethics, universal law or universal principle refers as concepts of legal legitimacy actions, whereby those principles and rules for governing human beings' conduct which are most universal in their acceptability, their applicability, translation, and philosophical basis, are therefore considered to be most legitimate. Sorry, one of us is interpreting this wrong. You want de-regulation in drugs and many other things you would like to see try that and you go against majority's that vote ideas into law(Weather you believe in diplomacy or not]. Yet it goes against the core principles of what humans try to use as a basis to compete or interact with one another. If you dont like the way I interpret this, that is your own opinion. And you are free to have it. But atleast leave room for your own mis-interpretation. " Was just a quip based on my heresy accusations. :) You dont need to take it seriously. " ..Just to play devils advocate(Because I really dont care about a plant you can grow "Freely" or if you smoke it), weed has so much more tar in it and the increased death toll's falling into the same catagory as tabbacco smoker's is making the real evidence against weed smokers far to hard to really analyse. a black person to marry a white person? Sorry, I live in NZ, didnt happen here, I dont have the "White Guilt, you suffer from". And would that cost money even if the did or didnt?, if not, I dont see the relevance. We are going for the use of a "money" moral here, not the "I HAVE A DREAM!, arguement" If you think I am missing what your trying to point out on that one, please do explain, I assume my bias is kicking in with this example of yours or maybee it just doesnt make sence to me. " Like stated, your not free of the strawman arguement yourself. And if you really are having trouble figureing out what I am refering to, feel free just to say so, "Please elaborate" or "provide research/link please". Its not hard. But I get the impression your getting sick of this whole topic aswell. Wallz of text, geez... Hope this explains what you consider "My insanity" or lack of "Education".... If not, I tilt my hat and peace out as I am getting sick of the two way shit throwing contest. www.tachi203.com : For live streams, gameplay, news of me +(. It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence. - Mohandas Gandhi Last edited by tachi203#2942 on May 9, 2012, 10:12:52 AM
|
|
" OK: " Lies in italics. Things which are potentially interpretable by opinion, but tenuous, in bold. " Quoting me out of context is surely the epitome of logical discourse and honestly. I said I don't have to "think" - as in I know. I know what Universal Law, Ethos, Ethics, and so on and so forth are (if I couldn't explain and tell the difference between them, I wouldn't have a job - that doesn't mean that I do or do not follow them.)), and you clearly do not... " Because surely every story with a religious character in it is a religious story? C'mon man. By the way, I didn't mention religion, I mentioned a character. But back to the first sentence - MASH had a chaplain in it. Princess Bride had a clergyman in it. Thor is about a bunch of gods. Diablo is about demons and angels. None of these are "religious" works. MASH is probably the closest, because it was generally about "Good clean family fun", but for crying out loud, one of the main characters cross dressed. In the 70s. " You quoted my answer - abiding by community ideals (Ethos, not ethics.) isn't justification to not question them. I don't smoke marijuana because it's illegal where I live. That doesn't mean that I have to believe that it's wrong to do so, in and of itself (IE, it's wrong to break the law, so I don't break the law.) If RMAH isn't in the game, I won't buy items (not that I expect that I would anyway...) - as I mentioned before, despite not seeing anything unethical about item/gold/account selling in and of themselves, I have never done it, because the TOS/EULA prohibit it. Anyway, there are plenty of people in this community who agree with me. " You must defend it because you are the person who desires to put words/opinions in the mouths of the devs, and because those words/opinions restrict the rights of other people without affecting you in any way. " Wikipedia copypasta? Anyway, I wasn't referring to zeto's earlier use, I was using it myself. You realize that "What was to be demonstrated" and "what was required to be proved" are functionally the same thing? "Thus I've proven my point" (to put it in colloquial terms...) " What tangible evil, or damnation, or even punishment comes with me believing (not doing... believing.) that there's nothing wrong with a RMAH? " Yup. You. It's even IN THE DEFINITION YOU LINKED. "whereby those principles and rules for governing human beings' conduct which are most universal in their acceptability, their applicability, translation, and philosophical basis" This is not universally accepted. I even (Again...) gave you a specific example: “Murder is bad” is universal law. I doubt you could find anyone, any country, any state that supports murder, apart from sociopathic or psychopathic individuals. There are games which sell far more power than allowing players to use money as currency for in game trades - there's also a game that has a RMAH. That in and of itself makes this not qualify as universal law. " Majority opinion shifts, laws change, and people are wrong sometimes. Again, Galileo, Catholic Church. QED. Disagreeing with the law isn't a good reason to break it. It is however a good reason to question it, to attempt to change it (through the channels. Like, say, democratic voting?) " Wrong. Marijuana has no tar in it, and has never been conclusively linked to increase cancer rates. Feel free to link me evidence to the contrary, from a credible scientific source. " The relevance is (why do I even have to explain this again?) that you are basically saying that one should NEVER question the status quo, nothing should ever change, because it's immoral or unethical to question if a rule or a law is a good idea, moral, ethical, still applicable. By your logic ("People are against it and it's the law!") black people shouldn't be able to marry white people, gay people should be put to death, and Galileo should have been drawn and quartered. It's a logically flawed argument. If you're going to discuss the point, do it in a way that's logically reasonable. Since you love wikipedia so much, look up "logical fallacies" and then avoid them. " Why would I ask you to elaborate when you misquote me, or refer to something like universal law in an incorrect way? You misused it. There's nothing to clarify. You ignore ethical cornerstones (such as the difference between ethos and ethics, or the fact that it's constantly involving, or the extremely core concept that ethics is often what one does when one is faced with two "sort of right" answers - how one chooses which is "most right".). There's nothing to "clarify". As for strawmen, telling you that you're uneducated with details of why (such as, I dunno, the entire above post) isn't a personal attack. I'm not calling you a religious zealot, moron, fanatic, hypocrite, or something of that nature - I am stating fact - "That doesn't mean what you think it means. Go learn some more." |
|
|
For grins and giggles, I tallied everyone who's posted in the thread. In approximate order of first post:
For: Stkmro Tagek Digibucc Silty Rooks84 Kodr Sickness AgentDave derbefrier incendium GusTheCrocodile aaricia Goaste sempuken chickenhawk Sparka ManiaCCC Karnos mayainverse stahlstorm AaronGR robble Against: ZtriDer CharanJaydemyr iiss starsg Flavious Miljan rabidwolf9 Ceppana NotSorry Oblomir BrecMadak Kavlor sYkoDe4d schwerpunk zeto Gangplank HateSolstice Xxnoob Faerie_Storm Minttunator Nemesis5858 D2IsGettingOld eissomesmo Grindok Kasmos lilbuddha svartlackad tachi203 leeho730 leojreimroc Flauros Neokolzia zhihong0321 Skivverus Borka Papagoat Flytheelephant MuCephei Tacitus saki04 Ragnar119 I am unsure, or they indicate they have mixed feelings: tpapp157 whiteboy88 Synner Kess9215 Zargus Demogorgon D623932883 Fenilita necromuso Archfiend Keziki Antilurker77 Gargravarr thepmrc Final tally: 22 for, 41 against, 14 unknown. If I misunderstood you, or you would like to clarify your position, let me know, and I'll update. Last edited by AgentDave#2974 on May 9, 2012, 3:38:52 PM
|
|
|
I would move myself to the 'unknown' or 'don't care' section. I understand both sides of the fence. If they had a RMAH in PoE I would use it to generate a few bucks off my playtime in the game, possibly set up farming operations to exploit it if the market is good enough. This is exactly what I will do in D3, I feel this is the #1 thing D3 has going for it. That being said I totally understand why many people are firmly against this element in a game and its implementation in this game is irrelevant to me.
Once again very sound reasoning from Dave for the most part. Last edited by thepmrc#0256 on May 9, 2012, 3:38:36 PM
|
|
|
I'm trying to preview my post, I keep accidently clicking submit lol my bad.
www.tachi203.com : For live streams, gameplay, news of me +(. It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence. - Mohandas Gandhi Last edited by tachi203#2942 on May 9, 2012, 5:13:43 PM
|
|
"lol? ''Stand amongst the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if honor matters.
The silence is your answer.'' IGN: Vaeralyse |
|
|
b
www.tachi203.com : For live streams, gameplay, news of me +(. It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence. - Mohandas Gandhi Last edited by tachi203#2942 on May 9, 2012, 5:12:37 PM
|
|
