Originally posted by duecerruss seems like a very reasonable guy, so I think arrakis would've had a good chance of sorting it all out with him. but as arrakis is quite crazy (and was probably drunk during most of his bad decisions), he decided to attack & threaten russ instead. I think that pretty much burned any chances of reconciliation he might've had.
can they get a get out of jail free card as well? then maybe we could ask them eh?
civ's racism and nmdavid's cheating, not really the type of offences you get a new chance for.
Originally posted by wormwoodyou see what you did there? you were practicing moral relativism. Stating that one person's offenses are less objectionable than anothers. Who decides whats acceptable and whats not? Is what CIV did any more or less racist than what many in the BWA do? Not in my eyes. Breaking the TOS is breaking the TOS
russ seems like a very reasonable guy, so I think arrakis would've had a good chance of sorting it all out with him. but as arrakis is quite crazy (and was probably drunk during most of his bad decisions), he decided to attack & threaten russ instead. I think that pretty much burned any chances of reconciliation he might've had.
civ's racism and nmdavid's cheating, not really the type of offences you get a new chance for.
Originally posted by duecerWhy are there different punishments for different crimes? How do people know that murder for example is any worse than jaywalking?~
you see what you did there? you were practicing moral relativism. Stating that one person's offenses are less objectionable than anothers. Who decides whats acceptable and whats not? Is what CIV did any more or less racist than what many in the BWA do? Not in my eyes. Breaking the TOS is breaking the TOS
P-
Originally posted by Very RustyThey are just examples.
I don't think that was a really good example phlabs. 😛
Originally posted by duecer
you see what you did there? you were practicing moral relativism. Stating that one person's offenses are less objectionable than anothers. Who decides whats acceptable and whats not? Is what CIV did any more or less racist than what many in the BWA do? Not in my eyes. Breaking the TOS is breaking the TOS
'moral relativism' isn't too hard a concept, it's often practiced. What CIV did was Far Worse than what Kirks has done in the past. I'm not a fan of either, but CIV was blatant enough to earn a permanent ban while Kirks seems to skirt any long term punishment.
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitNice quote.
[b]you see what you did there? you were practicing moral relativism. Stating that one person's offenses are less objectionable than anothers. Who decides whats acceptable and whats not? Is what CIV did any more or less racist than what many in the BWA do? Not in my eyes. Breaking the TOS is breaking the TOS
'moral relativism' isn't too hard a concep ...[text shortened]... enough to earn a permanent ban while Kirks seems to skirt any long term punishment.
P-[/b]
However, did you ever consider "cultural relatavism?"
What you did there was not consider that this is a worldwide site! ðŸ˜
Originally posted by dueceryes, of course some things are more acceptable than others. isn't it obvious? there's a difference between murder and littering.
you see what you did there? you were practicing moral relativism. Stating that one person's offenses are less objectionable than anothers. Who decides whats acceptable and whats not? Is what CIV did any more or less racist than what many in the BWA do? Not in my eyes. Breaking the TOS is breaking the TOS
claiming bwa members are racist is like claiming eminem, vanilla ice or any other white hiphop dork was racist. HATE is the problem, not cultural differences.
civ was clearly hateful in what he did, and thus deserved the ban. nmdavid cheated, no grey area there either. but arrakis is big time paranoid, I doubt he realized how far gone he already was. he's the guy who really believes in all the usual conspiracy theories, which means he's not well. his problems are obviously more medical (and alcohol induced) than intentional, and that does make a difference to me, and to any rational person I'd like to think. but, arrakis never showed any sign of remorse or understanding, so the whole point is moot.
and sure the TOS is the TOS, but the judge is russ. and like I said, I take him as a rather reasonable guy.
Originally posted by wormwoodA voice of reason. Very logical and well-argued but that will get you nowhere with this crowd.
yes, of course some things are more acceptable than others. isn't it obvious? there's a difference between murder and littering.
claiming bwa members are racist is like claiming eminem, vanilla ice or any other white hiphop dork was racist. HATE is the problem, not cultural differences.
civ was clearly hateful in what he did, and thus deserved the ban ...[text shortened]... is the TOS, but the judge is russ. and like I said, I take him as a rather reasonable guy.
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodI think you miss my point. Mikelom seemed to get it. You are applying YOUR cultural and moral bias to the situation, instead of relying on clear cut rules and definitions.
yes, of course some things are more acceptable than others. isn't it obvious? there's a difference between murder and littering.
claiming bwa members are racist is like claiming eminem, vanilla ice or any other white hiphop dork was racist. HATE is the problem, not cultural differences.
civ was clearly hateful in what he did, and thus deserved the ban is the TOS, but the judge is russ. and like I said, I take him as a rather reasonable guy.
A question for you: How exactly do you know that what CIV did was motivated by hate? I know for a fact that it wasn't. I've spoken with him, and met him a few times at tourneys. His intention was shock, and trying to prove a point to someone else on the site. I won't go into details further except in a private PM, but I assure you his intention was no more hateful than the BWA.