Griefers at the Engineers

As if most people follow logos?
Actually yes, they do. There is just the problem that the axioms they follow are often structured through pathological processes. This is one of the core beliefs of nearly every school of psychology, that madness and normality are not random. As to their predictability, I would say the modern logics of virtuality are not included by plato ;-)
 
Thanks for the correction, my understanding was based on hearsay. /cheers
No worries. The hearsay is common, and sometimes it is deliberately repeated to serve an agenda, which just adds to the confusion.

And after that rare, fact-based interlude I'm going to slowly back out of the thread again, like Homer going through Flanders' hedge, because I've absolutely no idea what's going on in here any more. :confused:
 
It appears to me that what void is trying to say, when he speaks, at great length, of selfishness in isolation, is that:
“Selfishness is natural instinct and should therefore be celebrated above all other things
“If I, therefore, just do everything from my own selfish motivation, then you need to accept, or even congratulate me, even if my selfishness has a negative impact on you in our interaction together.”
“I’m simply the messenger that we all do everything solely from selfish motivation”

Erm. How about No.
and No.
and No.

I already posted about the parallel primary motivators, and the thing here is that void clearly knows all about these things, but has deliberately failed to take these into consideration, state them to confirm his diatribe is balanced, or weigh them up in a balanced manner.
Void talks about selfishness as the be-all and end-all. Despite that he knows it is NOT the be-all and end-all, because of all the other factors I’ve previously listed and factors, as an intelligent and well read individual, he clearly is aware of.

So here we are in a social gaming experience, and void simply promotes selfishness as the one motivator that should be respected above all others.
That is the antithesis of a balanced social interaction and most people can see this clearly and transparently.

But reasons, I guess. Anything to justify being a negative impact to other players.

Ho hum.
 
No worries. The hearsay is common, and sometimes it is deliberately repeated to serve an agenda, which just adds to the confusion.

And after that rare, fact-based interlude I'm going to slowly back out of the thread again, like Homer going through Flanders' hedge, because I've absolutely no idea what's going on in here any more. :confused:
128182


Thank me later.
 
Actually yes, they do. There is just the problem that the axioms they follow are often structured through pathological processes. This is one of the core beliefs of nearly every school of psychology, that madness and normality are not random. As to their predictability, I would say the modern logics of virtuality are not included by plato ;-)

Broken logos /= logos.
It retains none of the predictability becasue it's pathological.
Most people respond more to pathos and ethos.
That's why we're unpredictable.
 
Broken logos /= logos.
That's the classical pre-Socratic position, but things get more complicated already within the Sophist dialogue, because there is a difference introduced between relative non-being (coffee without crème) and absolute non-being (the void, nothing).

This holds up for the concept of logos as it is used for example in neuroscience. It's a logos without crème or to be more exact without a strong relation to reality, but its fuctions still hold up, even within a pathological example. This is, in a short vurlgarized way, one of the explanations for OCD.

Edit: Grammar Error
 
Last edited:
Broken logos /= logos.
It retains none of the predictability becasue it's pathological.
Most people respond more to pathos and ethos.
That's why we're unpredictable.

I will say even calling it pathological is in most cases very unfair too.
Even following basic syllogisms a learned skill, so that's nothing more than privilege speaking in most cases.
 
That's the classical pre-Socratic position, but things get more complicated already within the Sophist dialogue, because there is a difference introduced between relative non-being (coffee without crème) and absolute non-being (the void, nothing).

This hold up for the concept of logos as it is used for example in neuroscience. It's a logos without crème or to be more exact without a strong relation to reality, but its fuctions still hold up, even within a pathological example. This is, in a short vurlgarized way, one of the explanations for OCD.

I call that obfuscation.
Pathological people can't even follow their own trains of thought!

This whole thread is about appeals to emotion and virtue signaling, ie pathos and ethos.
 
Even following basic syllogisms a learned skill
Pathological people can't even follow their own trains of thought!
Plato's logos is a learned skill, absolutely. Although it's not a techné (a skill of practical application), but an reflection on the inner structure of thought. That's why he speaks about remembering in regard to the idea.
This is also why psychotherapy actually helps people to develop this skill, so that they can follow and influence their own logos.

Why should one call the distinction between different forms of negation obfuscation?
 
It's just frustrating when I see all this silliness in the pvp subforum that is Supposed to be about PvP, and it's being overrun by the PVE community.

Seriously bois. This isn't the place for your silliness.
That's the same way dedicated PvE'rs feel about having their trade mission, mining activity, engineering activity (see thread OP) etc. interrupted by someone who feels like engaging in forced PvP.
One would think you'd be okay with it.
 
That's the same way dedicated PvE'rs feel about having their trade mission, mining activity, engineering activity (see thread OP) etc. interrupted by someone who feels like engaging in forced PvP.
One would think you'd be okay with it.
What you're describing above is part of the game that all participants agreed to when they fired it up and chose Open Play.

What happened here in the thread was going super far off topic to the point of not being helpful really at all for the discussion at hand. It's silly to turn it around and basically say, "See? How do you like it?"
 
That's the same way dedicated PvE'rs feel about having their trade mission, mining activity, engineering activity (see thread OP) etc. interrupted by someone who feels like engaging in forced PvP.
One would think you'd be okay with it.
Touché.

But let me derail and use this opportunity to quote the great thinker, Scooter:
"It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice."

(disclaimer: I know full well he didn't come up with that, but oh well, how much is the fish?)
 
Okay, let's return to the real thing. How about starting another meta-meta-discussion about the state of meta-discussions in the different forums.

This never was a thread about strategy or tactical behaviour etc. It started with the question whether PvP is acceptable or not. As soon as all the opinions are stated, there is not much to do but to attack the premise of the other position. It's not surprising that such a thread cannot keep on track isn't it?

More to the point, I think PvP has a much too steep entry. While I personally enjoy the combat with other players and the optimization of ships, there are too many people too scared to actually fight. I really hope that the upcoming changes include some beginners guide to PvP.
 
Top Bottom