MarbitChow wrote:You've stated at various points throughout this thread that:
No, these are your spin jobs on what I said. None of them are presented as I intended. Maybe you can convince others of spin, but since all my words are in place and unedited, others that wish to check the validity of your version can check on my intent, and if you're wrong in their eyes, you just lost anyone that calls your bluff. Frankly, I don't think anyone reading this will buy your versions.
Games are for winning, but not for entertainment (even though it is easier to find a examples of games that cannot be won than it is to find games that are not meant to entertain).
No, I said that Erfworld seems more consistent with a game to be won than one that is not intended to be won. I never denied the existence of persistent games not intended to be won, nor that some people play them for fun.
Creating sentient creatures for the purpose of killing each other is better than not creating them at all.
No, not in all cases. I specifically stated that creating people to live in a world of torture is malicious. I do not agree that Erfworld is a world of torture. You have a different opinion, and that's fine for you. If, however, the above statement is really what you think I said, then that indicates why it is so easy to make you dance. Sun Tzu stated that if you know yourself and your enemy, you will never lose. Since you don't know me, you miss that ideal. To defeat someone, you need to understand them, which is why spin jobs like yours fail utterly. You're fighting against a deluded version of me, and that never works out.
Killing enemies is not evil.
Only in the context of warfare, since my enemy is either trying to kill me, or will try to kill me. There are other contexts where it is not evil, such as self-defense, or defending others that are under threat. And since the Law backs me on that one, I'm not going to be convinced otherwise.
But what it seems to me that you're implying is that a drafted soldier into the Soviet forces in WW2 that shot a Nazi SS Officer at 100 yards that was leaning against a tree having a smoke is evil. I'm going to have to grossly disagree.
Soldiers rarely get an opinion on what is immoral. So long as their actions do not violate the Geneva Conventions or Rules of War, their actions are not immoral, and they are not evil, just for being soldiers that have the mental capacity and willingness to kill the enemy.
Creating only people who have a bloodthirsty desire to slaughter 'the other' is not evil.
When did I call them bloodthirsty? Again, disingenuous spin. People that can kill aren't inherently bloodthirsty just because they kill in the line of duty to their nation. By your logic, every drill sergeant on Earth is evil, because he really does turn wimpering simps into weapons of war. The Titans simply skip the need for such men to exist.
You reinforced, then ignored the argument that pitting aggressive creatures against each other for entertainment is wrong.
No, I never absolved the Titans. I simply do not feel that their entertainment stems from suffering, but from competition with each other. You want the viciousness to be their primary motivation, and that's fine for you. I personally think it's inconsistent with the PG-13 nature of the world, where pain appears to be minimized such that people missing an arm and with holes in their chests can still fight competitively with undamaged people, strongly suggesting that pain is simply not felt the same way we feel it. This is a where blood is non-existent, and people heal instantly and completely with no long-term consequences in less than 24 hours. No, if they enjoyed the suffering the way you profess, the world would be a lot uglier.
For someone who professes to believe in God, you've shown a great willingness to embrace the expedient and self-gratifying over the moral.
I do not think I actually ever stated a belief in God. That I am knowledgeable in the Judeo-Christian belief system does not indicate that I believe it myself, only that at some point in my life I had opportunity to learn about it. Whether I do or do not is entirely irrelevant, and I don't think you're impressing anyone by attacking me on that front, since it's attacking me instead of my theories.
Your whole premise is meaningless. It does not impact the outcome of the story one way or another. Parson is there, Erfworld needs to be fixed, and that's all we need to know.
How you view the Titans... how you equivocate what, to me, are moral absolutes... speaks volumes.
Like I said, morality is irrelevant to my theory. I don't need to defend the Titans on a moral ground. Competitive people can be moral or immoral, so it doesn't matter to me one whit. that I may be immoral under your belief system does not make my theory wrong, nor cast doubt on its validity.
Now, how about getting back to attacking the theory instead of my personal morality?