From: athe nonrex (athenonrex@godisdead.com)
Date: Thu Dec 04 2003 - 20:02:48 MST
[metahuman]
I'm sorry, but I'm a verbal soldier. If someone fires at me, I'm going to fire back.
By the way, we have guidelines. These are called Virtues and Sins. Unfortunately, it seems I'm the only one that wants Virians to constantly adhere to the "Book of Virus"--to live the philosophy--instead of picking and choosing when to have the Virtues and when to have the Sins.
Order cannot be brought to chaos if chaos is chaotic.
[athenonrex]
firstly...our sins and virtues are indeed guidelines. true enough.
however, they are guidelines for behaviour, not for debate. i feel, and
think, that creating established guidelines for people to follow, virian
specific, when engaging in debate would be most benificial and would be
a bit of elaboration to the virian sins and virtues. the topic has been
brought up quite a few times before, but it seems that every time that
the topic is brought up, the person proposing it, or the person bringing
the topic back up is shot down, along with the proposition because they
lack any specifics and details to the proposition.
whereas, however,
this forum is supposed to be an at least remotely democratic one, and
not the autocrasy that it more often tends to be...whereas because of
numerous and varied backgrounds, in conjunction with political,
(a)moral, ethical, social, economic and (a)religious views held by all
the members of the CoV...providing the details along with the
proposition would be in err, as the democratic aspects of CoV would be
undermined, as well as the diversity of it's members ignored. where,
might i ask, is the rationality in this? where, might i ask, is the
empathy in this? where, might i ask, is the vision in this?
you claimour to your values as a virian, and your self proclaimed title
of "verbal soldier"...yet you would overlook these considerations? and
based on what? your convienience? the fact that such rules of engagement
are not established? please, enlighten me...or at least induldge me by
explaining this to me.
to further confound the situation with the specifics of the arguement,
you two are arguing based upon your personal experiances and a mass of
generalization. whereas generalization is sometimes- often actually- a
necessity of life (i.e. you shouldn't have to touch the glowing iron
everytime to make sure that it's glowing because it's hot...you assume
that it is from past experiance...), generalization in an arguementative
sense should be followed up by specifics, examples, stats, etc...none
of which have been used so far that i've noticed. and the fact that the
other main source that both parties are drawing from is their personal
experiances with the education system also suggests further lack of
vision on both parts.
succinctly- i'm not trying to stir the shitstorm. i'm merely pointing
out that a shitstorm has the potential to start brewing here. and over
what? nevermind, by the way, all the ad hominem being slung (no names).
my suggested remedy to further incitation of shitstorms is to start a
forum where where we can discuss the drawing up of rules and guidelines
for virian debate. what is "acceptable" debate and what is
"unacceptable" debate, tactics, etc. but in such a way that everyone
who wishes to be involved and have say in the drafting of such rules
and guidelines will have due opportunity to speak up and add their
ideas, opinions, suggestions, objections, and what-have-you.
whereas we are not in a formal
forum, i do not believe we should be required to adhear to the strict
and ridgid Robert's Rules for debate. therefore, mermaid's much earlier
proposition of drawing up our own rules of debate seems to me a good
idea.
as i believe sebby would say (or was it someone else's signature?),
"courage...and shuffle the cards..."
oh, and your comment about chaos...
[metahuman]
Order cannot be brought to chaos if chaos is chaotic.
[athenonrex]
order? chaos? firstly, what relavence do those abstracts have? secondly,
chaos is chaotic by nature, and by definition...so you're effectively
stating that order cannot be brought to chaos, which i suppose is
generally true. the more that order is attempted to be imposed, the
greater the escalation of chaos generally is. but somehow, i don't
think that you were intending to imply that...so i have to ask, what
exactly do you mean by that?
_____________________________________________________________
--->Get your free email @godisdead.com
Made possible by Fade to Black Comedy Magazine
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 04 2003 - 20:03:44 MST