The "Creative Writing" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Today I felt terrible I woke thinking my wife would be laying, beside me and I would be able to put my arm round her. But no I couldn’t it was just lonely me I got up, and walked to the shower. I washed myself nice and clean, so I didn’t smell then I got dressed, in some nice clothes. Even though no one would really care I was wearing nice clothes. I went out the house and walked down the street, I walked along looking down at the floor, feeling sorry for myself.
Like I normally do every single day; every single second, minute, hour. I feel sorry for myself and I have never stopped. I have been acting like this since my wife went; we had been together for 10 years. She stopped it to go off with some other man, so now I hate her. I walk down the road kick some rubbish along. I walk into the café I go into every morning, to have my breakfast. I go in and ask for the usual bacon, egg, sausages and a nice warm cup of tea.
I shove it down me then walk out, I walk down to work I work in a little tiny office, where there’s no air conditioning and it’s boiling. Well the things to do today, walk up loads of stairs to my office because the lifts broken, then turn on my computer and wait for five damn minutes for it to load, then sit down and type up a load of horrible work. So I walk into the office no one greeting me I go and sit down, turn on the computer and wait for it to load. I go and open a window, when I look back round a woman is walking into the office. A woman I had never seen before with long blonde straight beautiful hair, her face so nice her eyes look glazed she was beautiful and I wanted her.
I went over to Mike “Who’s that woman” I asked. “What that one” He answered. “No the other Woman there” I answered “O she’s Sal” he told me. “Oh she’s beautiful. I didn’t need anybody anymore I had found the perfect person and she was great.
Like I normally do every single day; every single second, minute, hour. I feel sorry for myself and I have never stopped. I have been acting like this since my wife went; we had been together for 10 years. She stopped it to go off with some other man, so now I hate her. I walk down the road kick some rubbish along. I walk into the café I go into every morning, to have my breakfast. I go in and ask for the usual bacon, egg, sausages and a nice warm cup of tea.
I shove it down me then walk out, I walk down to work I work in a little tiny office, where there’s no air conditioning and it’s boiling. Well the things to do today, walk up loads of stairs to my office because the lifts broken, then turn on my computer and wait for five damn minutes for it to load, then sit down and type up a load of horrible work. So I walk into the office no one greeting me I go and sit down, turn on the computer and wait for it to load. I go and open a window, when I look back round a woman is walking into the office. A woman I had never seen before with long blonde straight beautiful hair, her face so nice her eyes look glazed she was beautiful and I wanted her.
I went over to Mike “Who’s that woman” I asked. “What that one” He answered. “No the other Woman there” I answered “O she’s Sal” he told me. “Oh she’s beautiful. I didn’t need anybody anymore I had found the perfect person and she was great.
Page:
Memorandum! wrote:
> Right. There's no good or bad.
> That's what you're saying? It's all opinion.
>
> Okay.
> Ever heard Moonlight Sonata? Good tune, I think you'll agree.
> However, since there is no good or bad, the song I've just written
> especially for you is just as 'good'.
> [URL]http://s10.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=36OP24HFB26HN1N1HJKQOETNZJ[/URL]
> to listen to it.
>
> Mine is just as full of emotion, is just as well composed.
> The structure, despite actually being non-existent is just as good as
> the intricate planning that went into composing Moonlight Sonata. If
> I believe these things are true, then I am right, because it's my
> opinion! That is a good song! Because it's my opinion!
>
> Let's go on with this whole "there's no good and bad"
> thing, we'll look at the current tennis frenzy.
>
> I don't play tennis. However, it is my opinion that I am the best
> tennis player in the world. I am better than Roger Federer. In
> fact, in my opinion he's useless. Who cares about the facts and
> objectivity? He's crap!
>
> I'm good at tennis. I don't play it, but I'm good. If I believe
> that, it has to be true, to me, because it's my opinion! And as long
> as it's correct to me no-one can say I'm wrong, right?
>
> Wrong. What I think doesn't matter.
> I could believe that I wrote the world's best ever song just now, and
> that I'm a better tennis player than Federer, but guess what? I'd be
> wrong!
>
> Taking that example further again, if there's no good and bad, how do
> people win sporting tournaments? After all, they're all of exact
> equal ability, because good and bad don't exist, yet somehow, there
> is always a winner and a loser, perhaps because the winner...played
> better? Wait! That can't be right! That would mean someone was more
> 'good' or less 'bad'...
>
> Someone can have an opinion that something is good, yes, and you're
> right about that, but just because someone believes something it
> doesn't suddenly become true.
>
> I'm the smartest person to ever live, the most talented at sports,
> the best musician, and just a general all round awesome guy.
>
> I could beat the world record for sprinting easily. In my opinion I
> could run the 100m in 3 seconds. It's my opinion, so it can't be
> wrong! I really am 3 times faster than the fastest sprinters. In my
> opinion I am more talented, so nobody can dispute it. Even though
> there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, because I believe it,
> it has to be true and nobody can dispute it.
>
> [URL]http://img196.exs.cx/img196/2691/pwnedtealc9qg.jpg[/URL]
That song was alright but to much guitar and noise no singing.
> Right. There's no good or bad.
> That's what you're saying? It's all opinion.
>
> Okay.
> Ever heard Moonlight Sonata? Good tune, I think you'll agree.
> However, since there is no good or bad, the song I've just written
> especially for you is just as 'good'.
> [URL]http://s10.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=36OP24HFB26HN1N1HJKQOETNZJ[/URL]
> to listen to it.
>
> Mine is just as full of emotion, is just as well composed.
> The structure, despite actually being non-existent is just as good as
> the intricate planning that went into composing Moonlight Sonata. If
> I believe these things are true, then I am right, because it's my
> opinion! That is a good song! Because it's my opinion!
>
> Let's go on with this whole "there's no good and bad"
> thing, we'll look at the current tennis frenzy.
>
> I don't play tennis. However, it is my opinion that I am the best
> tennis player in the world. I am better than Roger Federer. In
> fact, in my opinion he's useless. Who cares about the facts and
> objectivity? He's crap!
>
> I'm good at tennis. I don't play it, but I'm good. If I believe
> that, it has to be true, to me, because it's my opinion! And as long
> as it's correct to me no-one can say I'm wrong, right?
>
> Wrong. What I think doesn't matter.
> I could believe that I wrote the world's best ever song just now, and
> that I'm a better tennis player than Federer, but guess what? I'd be
> wrong!
>
> Taking that example further again, if there's no good and bad, how do
> people win sporting tournaments? After all, they're all of exact
> equal ability, because good and bad don't exist, yet somehow, there
> is always a winner and a loser, perhaps because the winner...played
> better? Wait! That can't be right! That would mean someone was more
> 'good' or less 'bad'...
>
> Someone can have an opinion that something is good, yes, and you're
> right about that, but just because someone believes something it
> doesn't suddenly become true.
>
> I'm the smartest person to ever live, the most talented at sports,
> the best musician, and just a general all round awesome guy.
>
> I could beat the world record for sprinting easily. In my opinion I
> could run the 100m in 3 seconds. It's my opinion, so it can't be
> wrong! I really am 3 times faster than the fastest sprinters. In my
> opinion I am more talented, so nobody can dispute it. Even though
> there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, because I believe it,
> it has to be true and nobody can dispute it.
>
> [URL]http://img196.exs.cx/img196/2691/pwnedtealc9qg.jpg[/URL]
That song was alright but to much guitar and noise no singing.
Right. There's no good or bad.
That's what you're saying? It's all opinion.
Okay.
Ever heard Moonlight Sonata? Good tune, I think you'll agree.
However, since there is no good or bad, the song I've just written especially for you is just as 'good'. [URL]http://s10.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=36OP24HFB26HN1N1HJKQOETNZJ[/URL] to listen to it.
Mine is just as full of emotion, is just as well composed.
The structure, despite actually being non-existent is just as good as the intricate planning that went into composing Moonlight Sonata. If I believe these things are true, then I am right, because it's my opinion! That is a good song! Because it's my opinion!
Let's go on with this whole "there's no good and bad" thing, we'll look at the current tennis frenzy.
I don't play tennis. However, it is my opinion that I am the best tennis player in the world. I am better than Roger Federer. In fact, in my opinion he's useless. Who cares about the facts and objectivity? He's crap!
I'm good at tennis. I don't play it, but I'm good. If I believe that, it has to be true, to me, because it's my opinion! And as long as it's correct to me no-one can say I'm wrong, right?
Wrong. What I think doesn't matter.
I could believe that I wrote the world's best ever song just now, and that I'm a better tennis player than Federer, but guess what? I'd be wrong!
Taking that example further again, if there's no good and bad, how do people win sporting tournaments? After all, they're all of exact equal ability, because good and bad don't exist, yet somehow, there is always a winner and a loser, perhaps because the winner...played better? Wait! That can't be right! That would mean someone was more 'good' or less 'bad'...
Someone can have an opinion that something is good, yes, and you're right about that, but just because someone believes something it doesn't suddenly become true.
I'm the smartest person to ever live, the most talented at sports, the best musician, and just a general all round awesome guy.
I could beat the world record for sprinting easily. In my opinion I could run the 100m in 3 seconds. It's my opinion, so it can't be wrong! I really am 3 times faster than the fastest sprinters. In my opinion I am more talented, so nobody can dispute it. Even though there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, because I believe it, it has to be true and nobody can dispute it.
[URL]http://img196.exs.cx/img196/2691/pwnedtealc9qg.jpg[/URL]
That's what you're saying? It's all opinion.
Okay.
Ever heard Moonlight Sonata? Good tune, I think you'll agree.
However, since there is no good or bad, the song I've just written especially for you is just as 'good'. [URL]http://s10.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=36OP24HFB26HN1N1HJKQOETNZJ[/URL] to listen to it.
Mine is just as full of emotion, is just as well composed.
The structure, despite actually being non-existent is just as good as the intricate planning that went into composing Moonlight Sonata. If I believe these things are true, then I am right, because it's my opinion! That is a good song! Because it's my opinion!
Let's go on with this whole "there's no good and bad" thing, we'll look at the current tennis frenzy.
I don't play tennis. However, it is my opinion that I am the best tennis player in the world. I am better than Roger Federer. In fact, in my opinion he's useless. Who cares about the facts and objectivity? He's crap!
I'm good at tennis. I don't play it, but I'm good. If I believe that, it has to be true, to me, because it's my opinion! And as long as it's correct to me no-one can say I'm wrong, right?
Wrong. What I think doesn't matter.
I could believe that I wrote the world's best ever song just now, and that I'm a better tennis player than Federer, but guess what? I'd be wrong!
Taking that example further again, if there's no good and bad, how do people win sporting tournaments? After all, they're all of exact equal ability, because good and bad don't exist, yet somehow, there is always a winner and a loser, perhaps because the winner...played better? Wait! That can't be right! That would mean someone was more 'good' or less 'bad'...
Someone can have an opinion that something is good, yes, and you're right about that, but just because someone believes something it doesn't suddenly become true.
I'm the smartest person to ever live, the most talented at sports, the best musician, and just a general all round awesome guy.
I could beat the world record for sprinting easily. In my opinion I could run the 100m in 3 seconds. It's my opinion, so it can't be wrong! I really am 3 times faster than the fastest sprinters. In my opinion I am more talented, so nobody can dispute it. Even though there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, because I believe it, it has to be true and nobody can dispute it.
[URL]http://img196.exs.cx/img196/2691/pwnedtealc9qg.jpg[/URL]
Look just stop posting in here.
> Bloody hell.
>
> Why do you think in black and white all the time? No, good and bad
> can't both be right at the same time, but there is a certain distance
> in between them both (certain as in a great, gaping chasm) - a
> sequential grey-scale into which most things fall.
>
> Hardly anything can be classified as wholly right or wrong, good or
> bad - but they fall in between the two, leaning towards one option or
> the other. But the existance of the rarer, 100% options on both sides
> has to be, otherwise there's no way to define what lies in between.
>
> That's what I was quite obviously trying to get at - something
> leaning more towards good, while not being entirely so, would be
> classified doog. You understand? You agree?
Just because more people believe something is good or bad, it doesn't mean it actually is- for example: many people think that the PS2 is better than the Gamecube, but it isn't really better. The majority of people just like it better(I'm not saying the Gamecube is better, just that they equally have they're own pros and cons).
> Surely you don't believe that every single action is equal to
> another?
> Killing someone is equal to saving someone's life?
>
> No, they aren't, and that's a fact.
> Don't try to brush it all away with 'ooh, yeah, but that person may
> have wanted to live / die' avoidance bullsh either.
That's not what I said, although it is true anyway. If someone did get murdered, then 1. the murderer wouldn't think of it as bad and 2. the victom(s) wouldn't think of it as bad as they would be dead anyway 3. however, they would be in a much better place, which wouldn't be 'bad' at all. Don't you think?
> Certain actions are greater than others - correct?
> Certain actions and more good, or more bad, than others.
Again, only by opinion. Not by everyone.
>
> I didn't say people couldn't say they hate it. If you do, you do-
> but
> that doesn't mean you should just insult someone's work. Would you
> prefer it if someone said "This is crap! You shouldn't have
> written it, and you never should have written any of your other
> stories either!"?
>
> I would, yes, if my story was actually crap. Although dismissing all
> my other stories because of one bad one would be stupid and - oh yes
> - wrong.
You'd honestly like people insulting your stories? You would really accept people saying no-one else could like it unless they were complete nobjockeys? You wouldn't make any comment against it? I don't believe that.
> There's also very little difference between voicing your dislike of
> something and insulting it. It's a grey area, and an unavoiable one
> if you place your work out for criticism. Them's the breaks.
Disliking something is just not liking something. Insulting something is purpousely trying to offend someone or their work.
> They can? Okay then... tell me, how do you get rid of touretts
> syndrome(don't know how to spell it, and personally don't really
> care)? What about Epilepsy, etc.?
>
> Bloody hell, what the feck are you on?
> I'm talking about a personality - your intelligence, morals,
> understanding, acceptance, skills in all areas etc etc. Not some
> random genetic disease they may have inherited which can actually be
> treated, although I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
Actually it could have a LOT to to with it. Klinefelter Syndrome could affect someone's grammer, as could tourrets, etc. So ner(and they can't be treated dumbarse, I would know).
> Anyone can "expand their knowledge", but does that
> neccaccarily make them 'a better person'?(Besides, I said perfect,
> not better)
>
> Well, greater knowledge usually leads to greater understanding, so
> usually yes.
I thought you kept talking about how murdering is bad, and you have to be pretty smart to create such things as atomic bombs. Also, someone could be the smartest person in the world and still not be a 'better person'. People are only as 'good' as their personality(which more often than not, can't be improved that easily).
> And you did say perfect - as in the view that everyone is perfect as
> they are - which implies that there is not room for any personal
> improvement, which is the exact thing I was arguing for.
Haven't you ever heard the saying "Nobody's perfect"? I said it on here before, but in theory everyone is perfect. As they can't be more perfect even if they were "the smartest person in the world". Everyone has their own problems. Although that doesn't mean they can just simply get rid of them all or make them better.
> What's the point in life, then - if every newborn child is born as
> perfect as they ever will be. If learning, growing, loving, creating,
> does absolutely nothing
>
> What a bleak and miserable outlook on life.
> Without the possibility of improving yourself, and in doing good to
> others, life is utterly meaningless, and you really do have my pity
> for having such a view, shunning the amazing feats man can perform to
> improve not only himself, but the world as a whole.
Meaning of life? If we all knew that then there would be no mystery- no purpose of living in the first place. Perhaps there isn't even one, but who knows? Anywhooo, no-one can really improve themselves. Docters don't magically help people to live all the time, we all have to die someday. Computer programmers don't keep people happy forever, eventually people will get tired of their stuff and move on to something different(until they die). Food marketers don't keep people alive forever either. For anyone who has ever heard of that story about God at the football game with Jews against Muslims, nobody can be better than anyone else(by which I mean improving over people).
> I'm ending this 'debate' now, finito. Obviously an impassé,
> what with you ignoring and avoiding my points, and giving rather
> rediculous answers everywere else.
I doubt that you are ending it. I bet you're getting ready to reply already- and how is answering your replies with the truth giving ridiculous answers? What was with all the crappy insults though? I was trying to stay calm and pacifist.
>
> Why do you think in black and white all the time? No, good and bad
> can't both be right at the same time, but there is a certain distance
> in between them both (certain as in a great, gaping chasm) - a
> sequential grey-scale into which most things fall.
>
> Hardly anything can be classified as wholly right or wrong, good or
> bad - but they fall in between the two, leaning towards one option or
> the other. But the existance of the rarer, 100% options on both sides
> has to be, otherwise there's no way to define what lies in between.
>
> That's what I was quite obviously trying to get at - something
> leaning more towards good, while not being entirely so, would be
> classified doog. You understand? You agree?
Just because more people believe something is good or bad, it doesn't mean it actually is- for example: many people think that the PS2 is better than the Gamecube, but it isn't really better. The majority of people just like it better(I'm not saying the Gamecube is better, just that they equally have they're own pros and cons).
> Surely you don't believe that every single action is equal to
> another?
> Killing someone is equal to saving someone's life?
>
> No, they aren't, and that's a fact.
> Don't try to brush it all away with 'ooh, yeah, but that person may
> have wanted to live / die' avoidance bullsh either.
That's not what I said, although it is true anyway. If someone did get murdered, then 1. the murderer wouldn't think of it as bad and 2. the victom(s) wouldn't think of it as bad as they would be dead anyway 3. however, they would be in a much better place, which wouldn't be 'bad' at all. Don't you think?
> Certain actions are greater than others - correct?
> Certain actions and more good, or more bad, than others.
Again, only by opinion. Not by everyone.
>
> I didn't say people couldn't say they hate it. If you do, you do-
> but
> that doesn't mean you should just insult someone's work. Would you
> prefer it if someone said "This is crap! You shouldn't have
> written it, and you never should have written any of your other
> stories either!"?
>
> I would, yes, if my story was actually crap. Although dismissing all
> my other stories because of one bad one would be stupid and - oh yes
> - wrong.
You'd honestly like people insulting your stories? You would really accept people saying no-one else could like it unless they were complete nobjockeys? You wouldn't make any comment against it? I don't believe that.
> There's also very little difference between voicing your dislike of
> something and insulting it. It's a grey area, and an unavoiable one
> if you place your work out for criticism. Them's the breaks.
Disliking something is just not liking something. Insulting something is purpousely trying to offend someone or their work.
> They can? Okay then... tell me, how do you get rid of touretts
> syndrome(don't know how to spell it, and personally don't really
> care)? What about Epilepsy, etc.?
>
> Bloody hell, what the feck are you on?
> I'm talking about a personality - your intelligence, morals,
> understanding, acceptance, skills in all areas etc etc. Not some
> random genetic disease they may have inherited which can actually be
> treated, although I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
Actually it could have a LOT to to with it. Klinefelter Syndrome could affect someone's grammer, as could tourrets, etc. So ner(and they can't be treated dumbarse, I would know).
> Anyone can "expand their knowledge", but does that
> neccaccarily make them 'a better person'?(Besides, I said perfect,
> not better)
>
> Well, greater knowledge usually leads to greater understanding, so
> usually yes.
I thought you kept talking about how murdering is bad, and you have to be pretty smart to create such things as atomic bombs. Also, someone could be the smartest person in the world and still not be a 'better person'. People are only as 'good' as their personality(which more often than not, can't be improved that easily).
> And you did say perfect - as in the view that everyone is perfect as
> they are - which implies that there is not room for any personal
> improvement, which is the exact thing I was arguing for.
Haven't you ever heard the saying "Nobody's perfect"? I said it on here before, but in theory everyone is perfect. As they can't be more perfect even if they were "the smartest person in the world". Everyone has their own problems. Although that doesn't mean they can just simply get rid of them all or make them better.
> What's the point in life, then - if every newborn child is born as
> perfect as they ever will be. If learning, growing, loving, creating,
> does absolutely nothing
>
> What a bleak and miserable outlook on life.
> Without the possibility of improving yourself, and in doing good to
> others, life is utterly meaningless, and you really do have my pity
> for having such a view, shunning the amazing feats man can perform to
> improve not only himself, but the world as a whole.
Meaning of life? If we all knew that then there would be no mystery- no purpose of living in the first place. Perhaps there isn't even one, but who knows? Anywhooo, no-one can really improve themselves. Docters don't magically help people to live all the time, we all have to die someday. Computer programmers don't keep people happy forever, eventually people will get tired of their stuff and move on to something different(until they die). Food marketers don't keep people alive forever either. For anyone who has ever heard of that story about God at the football game with Jews against Muslims, nobody can be better than anyone else(by which I mean improving over people).
> I'm ending this 'debate' now, finito. Obviously an impassé,
> what with you ignoring and avoiding my points, and giving rather
> rediculous answers everywere else.
I doubt that you are ending it. I bet you're getting ready to reply already- and how is answering your replies with the truth giving ridiculous answers? What was with all the crappy insults though? I was trying to stay calm and pacifist.
ahaha. He was pwned ages ago, he's just too stupid/stubborn to admit it.
Hey Marinky. You have been err pwned.
Marinky_Kongshi wrote:
> I wouldn't think it is particularly 'good', but that's
> not stopping the person(s) responsible(or my family for that matter)
> from thinking it's not bad. So it would be neither. Anyone would
> probably choose peace(being dead) over suffering anyway. Although, in
> order for this person to kill my entire family they would have
> to come to us, Empingham, Stamford, Birmingham, America and a lot of
> places that not even I know of(not forgetting that they might not
> even know who or where my family are). I don't even know why they
> would bother with all that running around in the first place.
Wow, you really are a wash-out. Way to completely avoid the point.
"Yeah, but that wouldn't happen!1" It was an example, cockshanks.
Grow some balls - have the courage to stand up and say with utter conviction that something is right and something is wrong.
Like I say, without people willing to do that, we'd still be hunched up squatting in trees throwing stones at whoever gets within twenty feet of us.
> Although I'd like to know where you stand on laws, and being able to
> statystically analyse some things for whether they are good or bad,
> as with this story. But whatever ... on we go ...
Still.
> Does 'dab' mean 'bad' by any chance? If so then it would obviously
> have the same definition. Many people thought Hitler's ideas were
> good. Then again, many thought they were bad. Just like someone can't
> both enjoy a cake and hate it at the same time- good and bad can't
> both be right at the same time. So the same would probably go for
> 'doog' and 'dab'.
Bloody hell.
Why do you think in black and white all the time? No, good and bad can't both be right at the same time, but there is a certain distance in between them both (certain as in a great, gaping chasm) - a sequential grey-scale into which most things fall.
Hardly anything can be classified as wholly right or wrong, good or bad - but they fall in between the two, leaning towards one option or the other. But the existance of the rarer, 100% options on both sides has to be, otherwise there's no way to define what lies in between.
That's what I was quite obviously trying to get at - something leaning more towards good, while not being entirely so, would be classified doog. You understand? You agree?
Surely you don't believe that every single action is equal to another?
Killing someone is equal to saving someone's life?
No, they aren't, and that's a fact.
Don't try to brush it all away with 'ooh, yeah, but that person may have wanted to live / die' avoidance bullsh either.
Certain actions are greater than others - correct?
Certain actions and more good, or more bad, than others.
And therefore - in order to define the level of 'goodness' attributed to any action, the divine unreachable 'good' must - and absolutely has - to exist - if only in order to provide a contrast, a backdrop, a scale on which to balance out the amout of goodness of normal acts.
> I didn't say people couldn't say they hate it. If you do, you do- but
> that doesn't mean you should just insult someone's work. Would you
> prefer it if someone said "This is crap! You shouldn't have
> written it, and you never should have written any of your other
> stories either!"?
I would, yes, if my story was actually crap. Although dismissing all my other stories because of one bad one would be stupid and - oh yes - wrong.
There's also very little difference between voicing your dislike of something and insulting it. It's a grey area, and an unavoiable one if you place your work out for criticism. Them's the breaks.
> They can? Okay then... tell me, how do you get rid of touretts
> syndrome(don't know how to spell it, and personally don't really
> care)? What about Epilepsy, etc.?
Bloody hell, what the feck are you on?
I'm talking about a personality - your intelligence, morals, understanding, acceptance, skills in all areas etc etc. Not some random genetic disease they may have inherited which can actually be treated, although I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
> Anyone can "expand their knowledge", but does that
> neccaccarily make them 'a better person'?(Besides, I said perfect,
> not better)
Well, greater knowledge usually leads to greater understanding, so usually yes.
And you did say perfect - as in the view that everyone is perfect as they are - which implies that there is not room for any personal improvement, which is the exact thing I was arguing for.
What's the point in life, then - if every newborn child is born as perfect as they ever will be. If learning, growing, loving, creating, does absolutely nothing
What a bleak and miserable outlook on life.
Without the possibility of improving yourself, and in doing good to others, life is utterly meaningless, and you really do have my pity for having such a view, shunning the amazing feats man can perform to improve not only himself, but the world as a whole.
I'm ending this 'debate' now, finito. Obviously an impassé, what with you ignoring and avoiding my points, and giving rather rediculous answers everywere else.
I'll let someone else tell you you've been pwned.
> I wouldn't think it is particularly 'good', but that's
> not stopping the person(s) responsible(or my family for that matter)
> from thinking it's not bad. So it would be neither. Anyone would
> probably choose peace(being dead) over suffering anyway. Although, in
> order for this person to kill my entire family they would have
> to come to us, Empingham, Stamford, Birmingham, America and a lot of
> places that not even I know of(not forgetting that they might not
> even know who or where my family are). I don't even know why they
> would bother with all that running around in the first place.
Wow, you really are a wash-out. Way to completely avoid the point.
"Yeah, but that wouldn't happen!1" It was an example, cockshanks.
Grow some balls - have the courage to stand up and say with utter conviction that something is right and something is wrong.
Like I say, without people willing to do that, we'd still be hunched up squatting in trees throwing stones at whoever gets within twenty feet of us.
> Although I'd like to know where you stand on laws, and being able to
> statystically analyse some things for whether they are good or bad,
> as with this story. But whatever ... on we go ...
Still.
> Does 'dab' mean 'bad' by any chance? If so then it would obviously
> have the same definition. Many people thought Hitler's ideas were
> good. Then again, many thought they were bad. Just like someone can't
> both enjoy a cake and hate it at the same time- good and bad can't
> both be right at the same time. So the same would probably go for
> 'doog' and 'dab'.
Bloody hell.
Why do you think in black and white all the time? No, good and bad can't both be right at the same time, but there is a certain distance in between them both (certain as in a great, gaping chasm) - a sequential grey-scale into which most things fall.
Hardly anything can be classified as wholly right or wrong, good or bad - but they fall in between the two, leaning towards one option or the other. But the existance of the rarer, 100% options on both sides has to be, otherwise there's no way to define what lies in between.
That's what I was quite obviously trying to get at - something leaning more towards good, while not being entirely so, would be classified doog. You understand? You agree?
Surely you don't believe that every single action is equal to another?
Killing someone is equal to saving someone's life?
No, they aren't, and that's a fact.
Don't try to brush it all away with 'ooh, yeah, but that person may have wanted to live / die' avoidance bullsh either.
Certain actions are greater than others - correct?
Certain actions and more good, or more bad, than others.
And therefore - in order to define the level of 'goodness' attributed to any action, the divine unreachable 'good' must - and absolutely has - to exist - if only in order to provide a contrast, a backdrop, a scale on which to balance out the amout of goodness of normal acts.
> I didn't say people couldn't say they hate it. If you do, you do- but
> that doesn't mean you should just insult someone's work. Would you
> prefer it if someone said "This is crap! You shouldn't have
> written it, and you never should have written any of your other
> stories either!"?
I would, yes, if my story was actually crap. Although dismissing all my other stories because of one bad one would be stupid and - oh yes - wrong.
There's also very little difference between voicing your dislike of something and insulting it. It's a grey area, and an unavoiable one if you place your work out for criticism. Them's the breaks.
> They can? Okay then... tell me, how do you get rid of touretts
> syndrome(don't know how to spell it, and personally don't really
> care)? What about Epilepsy, etc.?
Bloody hell, what the feck are you on?
I'm talking about a personality - your intelligence, morals, understanding, acceptance, skills in all areas etc etc. Not some random genetic disease they may have inherited which can actually be treated, although I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
> Anyone can "expand their knowledge", but does that
> neccaccarily make them 'a better person'?(Besides, I said perfect,
> not better)
Well, greater knowledge usually leads to greater understanding, so usually yes.
And you did say perfect - as in the view that everyone is perfect as they are - which implies that there is not room for any personal improvement, which is the exact thing I was arguing for.
What's the point in life, then - if every newborn child is born as perfect as they ever will be. If learning, growing, loving, creating, does absolutely nothing
What a bleak and miserable outlook on life.
Without the possibility of improving yourself, and in doing good to others, life is utterly meaningless, and you really do have my pity for having such a view, shunning the amazing feats man can perform to improve not only himself, but the world as a whole.
I'm ending this 'debate' now, finito. Obviously an impassé, what with you ignoring and avoiding my points, and giving rather rediculous answers everywere else.
I'll let someone else tell you you've been pwned.
Yes you. What was the need to post all that agina?
Who Me?
Ok I really hopoe you get banned. And get stabbed by someone called Mike.
Page: