|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Eeeevil! (Read 14212 times)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
*Bangs head against wall repeatedly*
You can't label things "good" and "evil". Thats the entire point and idea behind Starcontrol 2.
You could not be more DEAD WRONG! A person can go around calling all people, places, and objects "barf" for all I care because it's entirely possible to label anything as one will. The second sentence is even more laughable. Paul and Fred did not say "Let's make a game that proves good and evil are falty concepts" when they started to put this game together. What they did do is make a game with nearly 30 different species that are not one-dimensional.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Chrispy
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 917
Vlik Dweller
|
yes, but the indeviduals that supported slavery were evil. So i guess the argument would be that the indevidual druuge that support slavery are evil.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
And, seeing as the entire Drruge culture seems to be based on slavery, that makes a large amount of them evil. the trouble here is that we (obviously) know very little of everday life, be it in the Crimson Corporation, or as an Acolyte of Dogar and Kazon. There are probably any number of different sides and factions in every alien culture, all with different agendas, goals and morals. However, we only see the general outcome, which is either what a majority of the population supports, or what a small and powerful elite has decided upon. therefore we can only label the races generally good or evil, not specifically. To do so, would Chrispy so eloquently points out, be a generalization of an entire race.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Chrispy
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Vlik Dweller
|
dont understand that last sentence 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3876
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
dont understand that last sentence
There is a good reason for that. Namely, the structure of the sentence is sort of inside-out (though still correct, up to repunctuation). I'll explain.
To do so, would Chrispy so eloquently points out, be a generalization of an entire race.
repunctuated, that comes out as
"To do so would, Chrispy so eloquently points out, be a generalization of an entire race."
Subject: "To do so" == To label a race as specifically good or evil (refers to the previous sentence)
Verb: "would be"
Predicate nominative: "a generalization of an entire race"
A clause modifying the rest of the sentence: "Chrispy so eloquently points out"
I am not sure what kind of clause it is. It seems to be invoking indirect discourse, effectively saying:
"Chrispy is pointing out that to do so would be a generalization of an entire race."
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 29, 2003, 07:34:44 pm by Death_999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Chrispy
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Vlik Dweller
|
thats ok, i get it now. But as it was, it was half way between agreeing with me or asking me a question.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3876
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
I stand by my version. This version still needs no comma before the 'would' and needs one after it -- because 'would' is not part of the clause.
edit: this is on topic! I'm being evil!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 30, 2003, 07:46:00 pm by Death_999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Chrispy
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 917
Vlik Dweller
|
thats prolly what confused me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
neo_b
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 37
|
English is Eeeevil!
Sorry, couldn't help myself. 
In US popular culture, there is a trend towards "moral relativism"... Though there is *some* merit to the concept for tolerance's sake, it is, imho, a factor in eroding moral systems. :-/
Just curious, why does a *whole* race need to be classified as "good" or "evil"? Does not evil apply to actions and intentions?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
|
|
|
|
|
Deep Jiffa Owns j00!
). What I meant was that I agree with you on the idea that individuals may have different views than the race as a whole.