User talk:GW-Kiron

HUMBUG! my name is stupid now! stupid merge!!! (GW-Kiron 16:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC))
 * Look on the bright side; there's probably alot of other names that turned out worse cause of this. Just laugh at them to make you feel better. [[Image:Foul Bane1.jpg|65pxx26px]] 08:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Claim to be christian then call someone a faggot. nice.
 * although im used to hearing stuff like that,I still would point out that you misunderstand deeply what I said and why i said it. however, if you come with your fists up looking for a fight and an excuse you will find one. To straighten it out I will say i dont actually think the guy is a 'faggot'. if dramatic affect reels them in, might as well use it, though. now tell me what you really think.(GW-Kiron 05:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

Congratulations
On having a happy medium of being willing to share your faith but not forcing it down the throats of those who don't want to hear it. I just wanted to say thanks for being spiritual without being a dickweed, for lack of a better word. &mdash; Powersurge360  05:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah, I mean, I know what its like to have someone try to fight you into jesus. it doesnt work. Ill never sacrifice truth, but ill never try to force you into it. (GW-Kiron 23:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

R15 Values
Regarding A chance to discuss values, I didn't just "quote one sentence", I quoted two, and they were the premises of your argument. If you accept these are wrong, you have to change everything else. Please respond by pointing out where my argument (or my understanding of yours) is flawed, or by changing yours.

Two unrelated wiki-tips: you can change your signature back to "Kiron" in your preferences (do NOT check the "raw signature" box), and you can use your watchlist to keep tabs on discussions not on your talkpage - that's what I do (both, actually). --◄mendel► 06:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, i guess to summarize my argument without being a 'dickweed' (lol), ill say this: Either A. you believe value is not relative, or B. you believe it is. In 'A.' it is highly unlikely you will assign value to a game unless you have a belief system that is either created specifically for the purpose of debate (because all classical value systems that declare absolutes place them as God or a 'god') or is flawed. In 'B.' it is impossible to really declare someone else's values as lesser (or greater) than your own.


 * If i say truth is relative then what is true to me may not be true to you. If I say it is fixed, what is true will always be true. (consequently the only system that supports an absolute truth is that of a theological one that focuses on God being the source of absolute truth.)


 * Its the same way with values; I hope that clears it up. All im saying is that those who say the 'r15' has no meaning should check and see if their value system lines up with one that supports absolute values, and that those who say it can should check to see if they believe in relative morality and value ect. Because unless you create a religion that centers all absolute value and truth (which would be illogical as there is noone dumb enough to believe GW is eternal) around guild wars, then you cannot say its worth is of absolute value.


 * well i fail at being short. (GW-Kiron 23:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC))


 * (I've changed your indenting so it conforms to common usage for replies on this wiki.)
 * Concerning A., any practical absolute value system must place value on actions in this world because otherwise it is useless as guidance. I had suggested that value could be assigned to GW by noting that playing a MMORPG puts you in contact with other people and by setting you challenges to overcome, allows you to learn and grow as a person. You argue that this is "highly unlikely"; why? GW may not be eternal, but the people who play it are, and what they experience when they interact with non-eternal things matters.
 * I would ask you to sort an opinion along the line of "instead of playing a game all day, he ought to get a job and earn some money like the rest of us" into your A/B dichotomy, because I don't understand how it fits.
 * There was more to my original post, but this'll suffice for now. --◄mendel► 23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a quick point."the only system that supports an absolute truth is that of a theological one that focuses on God being the source of absolute truth." is not something you want to claim. Objective List Theories do not require belief in God. Aside from them, consider an atheist scientist who believes that there are eternal objective constants in the laws that build up the universe. It's as bad as the birthday fallacy* to say that they all must believe in God. *see hidden note for brief description of this fallacy. Ezekiel  [Talk]  01:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, scientific "law" and the existence of ethical, theological, moral, philosophical absolutes are two different things. I never argued that science is either absolute or not absolute. The debate is over the 'absoluteness' of value (if you paid attention I dont see how you could come to a different conclusion.) As for actions, i never argued against or for actions having or not having absolute value. I argued a value, a title, and a physical object. you guys can twist my arm and try and make me argue a point I didnt bring up but all it does is make me look dumb to people reading this, which is rather .....untasteful. (GW-Kiron 16:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC))
 * also to be quite frank, its rather childish of you guys to note how you reset my indent or hide notes for me to read, I dont want to be a prude but it makes you look like snobs lol. im not your enemy and im not trying to make you accept anything. Im pointing out a possible conflict in worldview between parties assigning value to a title. Im not trying to redefine physics, im mostly just stating facts. (GW-Kiron 17:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC))


 * I'm sorry, I didn't mean to snub you with the indent comment; on the contrary, it's considered inappropriate to edit other people's comments, and when I reformatted yours, I wanted to "own up" and give some justification.
 * It turns out I misunderstood you after all - you were not talking about what the rank stands for, but rather the rank itself. I apologize for causing confusion. --◄mendel► 21:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * well i probably came off as a prude too. I apologize as well. (GW-Kiron 22:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC))
 * I hid the description purely because it is not directly relevant and I thought it looked better compared to making it show. When I said that the quoted line is not something you wanted to claim, I said it because that particular line is a generalisation that says no system besides religion can have absolute truth, which is not what you believe (or at least I didn't get that from what you've said) I'm not arguing for or against your philosophical position, I'm just pointing out that that particular line is not good for your argument. But seeing as there's no conflict, it doesn't matter anymore. Ezekiel  [Talk]  00:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)