|
Post by kvalandur on Jan 10, 2013 20:06:33 GMT -6
Sounds good
|
|
|
Post by chaiguy on Jan 11, 2013 1:37:57 GMT -6
Hrod: "Initiation: To act without provocation or cause."
Is this really the definition of "initiation"? Microsoft Word gave me a different definition.
|
|
|
Post by Gintigael Gemweaver on Jan 11, 2013 9:19:29 GMT -6
Just don't smash my hands and I'm fine. I need them to create wonderful enchanted items to sell
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 11, 2013 9:23:24 GMT -6
You heard him. Knees are fair game.
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Jan 11, 2013 10:13:59 GMT -6
In the specific definition of the aggression for our purposes, yes.
|
|
|
Post by chaiguy on Jan 11, 2013 11:00:45 GMT -6
In the specific definition of the aggression for our purposes, yes. I don't have a problem with how you define non agression, but still I think it's a little misleading to give skewed definitions to words to strengthen an argument. Words mean what they mean, you just can't say they mean whatever you want them to mean to suit your argument. I guess this is coming from a former Magic the Gathering player.
|
|
|
Post by Gintigael Gemweaver on Jan 11, 2013 11:21:10 GMT -6
"I don't have an obstacle with how you flank non agression, but still I confer it's a wee bit ensnaring to give angular diagnosis to expressions to invigorate an exchange. Expressions speak of what they connote, you just can't say they allude to whatever you hunger for them to suggest to befit your contention. I opine this is en route from a quondam Magic the Gathering sportsman."
Hmm, words. I think that we could re-word our Ideology and Role so it more fits our true thoughts. To make it less confusing?
|
|
|
Post by chaiguy on Jan 11, 2013 11:45:54 GMT -6
"I don't have an obstacle with how you flank non agression, but still I confer it's a wee bit ensnaring to give angular diagnosis to expressions to invigorate an exchange. Expressions speak of what they connote, you just can't say they allude to whatever you hunger for them to suggest to befit your contention. I opine this is en route from a quondam Magic the Gathering sportsman." Hmm, words. I think that we could re-word our Ideology and Role so it more fits our true thoughts. To make it less confusing? So Gin, I'm guessing that you feel I'm over reacting. That's fine, maybe I am. In closing, everyone loves semantics ;P.
|
|
|
Post by Nymerias on Jan 11, 2013 11:47:24 GMT -6
I just left out the definition parts for length reasons. If you think I should change the entry in anyway please let me know.
|
|
|
Post by chaiguy on Jan 11, 2013 12:12:14 GMT -6
I just left out the definition parts for length reasons. If you think I should change the entry in anyway please let me know. Thanks nymerias, I'm a little more comfortable without those parts anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Gintigael Gemweaver on Jan 11, 2013 13:45:18 GMT -6
I don't think you were overracting. I was just making a little fun and trying to point out both sides... plus I love Thesauruses. "Thou shall not aggress" is a vague term. Non-aggression, to me is like Ghandi's and the American Civil Rights movement's nonviolence movements. The theory was that they didn't even defend themselves. But I understand what we mean when we say non-aggression, its just not what I picture... probably like you, Chai.
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Jan 11, 2013 21:27:03 GMT -6
Specifically, non-aggression in our guild refers to the ethical Non Aggression Principle. As an Austrain Econ student, it's a defining part of my mindset - and since I was hacking away alone when the guild was a wee bahbby in my head, that's part of the crazy that spewed out.
|
|
|
Post by chaiguy on Jan 12, 2013 1:12:05 GMT -6
Specifically, non-aggression in our guild refers to the ethical Non Aggression Principle. As an Austrain Econ student, it's a defining part of my mindset - and since I was hacking away alone when the guild was a wee bahbby in my head, that's part of the crazy that spewed out. I do appreciate that you have give me a deeper understanding of what you're talking about Hrod. I have to admit that I'm not familiar with the ethical Non Aggression Principle, or Austrain Econ, but at least I know where your coming from.
|
|
|
Post by chaiguy on Jan 12, 2013 1:13:24 GMT -6
I don't think you were overracting. I was just making a little fun and trying to point out both sides... plus I love Thesauruses. "Thou shall not aggress" is a vague term. Non-aggression, to me is like Ghandi's and the American Civil Rights movement's nonviolence movements. The theory was that they didn't even defend themselves. But I understand what we mean when we say non-aggression, its just not what I picture... probably like you, Chai. It's very nice of you to be so understanding Gin, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Jan 12, 2013 10:36:48 GMT -6
Basically, I'm a rationalist and I hold life as my highest value (since, you know, it lets me hold other values ). NAP is the simplest and most effective ethical system I've found to propagate good living and peace, so that's what I follow in my personal life. If you're ever interested in some reading on the topic (I was a Philosophy major for a while, so beware long sandtrap discussions with me), I'd be glad to point you towards some excellent material.
|
|