Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS)
Pages
| Author | Topic: Shaper hypocrisy vs. Shaper tragedy (SPOILERS) |
|---|---|
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Monday, August 7 2006 13:44
Profile
I've went over extensively how giving birth to an infant is different than using magic to turn raw organic material into a hulking humanoid lifeform. If you feel the creations of human beings are inherently equal to humans themselves, than justify and explain your position. If you think giving birth to an infant is equivalent to making a battle alpha or ghlaak (which I personally, for a variety of reasons, don't agree with) than instead of making the analogy justify it. If you can't see the obvious difference between a mother carrying and giving birth to a child and shaping a creature through magic, there's not much I can do personally to explain the facts of life to you. In the end, all you're saying is that your life is worth as much as a battle alpha or artilla, and the inconsistency I'm pointing out with that line of reasoning is that everyone seems to be reserving sympathy for serviles and drakons but they don't care too much about the rights of ALL creations. If a human is equal to a servile, then a human should also be equal to an artilla and a human should be equal to a golem. If the life of a human conceived and carried in its mother's womb for nine months, bonded and connected to her by an instinctual emotional bond, suckled on her breast and taught fairness, morality, and kindness through her guidance is in the end worth as much as the life of a servile, then it's worth as much as the existence of a roamer or vlish as well. It doesn't matter if a human's mind develops and matures over years and years of learning and a shaped creation has its adult intelligence from the moment it's created, nor does it matter if a human starts life as an infant while teh creation is brought into existence in its full adult form. If that's the case, then creations run amok such as overpowered golems have as much right to life as you or I, regardless if its first act in life is to kill its creator and anything else that moves in its immediate vicinity. Not that I'd agree with that perspective, but if you genuinely feel everything about your life and existence is equal to a being made through magic, that's fine for your own personal philosophy for life. But you also have to accept that the same rule applies down the line, and ALL creations without exception have to be seen as inherently free as well, regardless of if their natural inclination is killing and eating humans. I'm well aware what a reductio ad absurdum argument is. The only reason your counter argument fails is because you assume the lives of creations is equal to humans, while I believe human life is inherently more fragile and valuable. For the most part, creations don't start lives as infants, or even children. They start as fully adult, and while they gainnew experiences and learn, they start with a full adult intelligence, not the relative blank slate of an infant. It's not enough to compare humans to shaped creations; you have to contrast them as well. If you think the obvious and self apparent differences between humans and shaped beings doesn't inherently make the lives of one distinguishable from the other, convince me. Because I have a hard time thinking of a baby when I see fire breathing 12 ft. tall 3 ton reptile. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, August 7 2006 14:39
Profile
Homepage
As far as I can tell, the distinction you're drawing between humans and GF creations is that the creation process itself is different for both, and humans are simply harder to create — this splits humans and GF creations into two categories, hard to create and easy to create respectively. The distinction that others have been drawing is that the end product is intelligent — this splits humans and serviles and drakons into one pile and most other creations into another, intelligent and not intelligent respectively. I'm not sure why the fact that something is difficult to create therefore makes it more deserving of freedom and self-determination than the fact that something is intelligent does, but then, I'd have to think about it to argue the other way, either. I think that there is something to the intelligence angle — I can't think of a particular reason that horses, for instance, need to be rid of the oppression of the bridle — but I can't immediately articulate it. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 7099
|
written Monday, August 7 2006 16:45
Profile
A common thing among people, are to judge the level of importance, is by the level or degree of intelligence. or how much they look like people. However, what creations lack, are souls. Humans have souls. Which makes us a priority. But, evil people harm other people, so we eliminate them. So, if shapers think the rouges dangerous, they must be killed/removed/destroyed. however, non-shapers dont make the same distinctions and lines. They think creations are cute and cuddly and want them alive, even if they endanger humans. Ok, i forgot where i was going but, im done now. -------------------- I like everyone...I just like some people more than others! Posts: 60 | Registered: Wednesday, May 3 2006 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Monday, August 7 2006 17:23
Profile
quote:And you know this how? Do animals have souls? If so, which ones? What if humans were able to create sentient animals through genetic engineering -- how does one determine if it has they have souls? Who should decide and what objective reasoning can we use to determine if something has a soul and what does not? Of course, the nature of a soul is one of faith. If I have a religion that believes dolphins have souls, what makes my religion's view on the matter less correct than another. I hope this illustrates the problem with the soul argument. It goes beyond a value argument, but to a supernatural/theological one. Values are open for debate/discussions, theology on the other hand is not if you start from different assumptions. quote:Now things like Fryoas and Roamers are really not comparable as they lake much in the way of intelligence. However, let's look at things like Serviles or Gazers. Both are obviously capable of free thought and carrying on conversations. In the GF world, they can pretty much do everything humans do minus shaping -- even the Drakons can do that. My justification is the level of sentience. When a being is intelligent enough to be consciously self-aware, make its own decisions, converse freely, and capable of abstract thought, I'd put that as equivalent to humans. The one way out of that is to admit a superiority to humans since you are human. Although this argument is somewhat tautological, it is tenable from a values standpoint. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 7099
|
written Monday, August 7 2006 19:48
Profile
Lol. I understand your point about the souls. Many if not most leading religions pointto the argument that humans have something more over animals, other than intelligence. Also, They could make a fyora that talked. All they really need to do is a bit of experementing. Im just making assumptions. If they made drakes in the first place through trial and error, they could easily make the lower level creations smarter. Would that somehow make the fyora special compared to the dumb ones? And your point about freewill and making decisions, you dont need to be able to speak or be intelligent to make a decision. Example, my dog is fat. She eats too much. She made that decision. To overeat. So, why are the other dogs not overeating? Are they smarter? Or dumber? Is she fat cuz shes dumb, or smart? My friend is real fat, he also eats much. He can talk and function mostly, except run. Lol, where am i going with this? I forgot. I'm losing it! -------------------- I like everyone...I just like some people more than others! Posts: 60 | Registered: Wednesday, May 3 2006 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Monday, August 7 2006 20:20
Profile
Just to clarify, souls are entirely a metaphysical thing with no answer that can be independently verified and checked. 99.9% of people may agree on something, but that does not necessarily make them right. I would not consider dogs to be particularly intelligent, even if they could talk. The reason comes from the ability to understand consequences of actions, this is what I was getting at with self-awareness. Yes, your dog overeats, and does make "decisions". I use quotes because those decisions are somewhat unlike human decisions. Your dog eats because he is hungry. So do humans, of course, but we are aware (or at least have the potential to be aware) that the consequence of overeating will lead to obesity which in turn leads to more serious problem. I honestly doubt your dog has that capacity. To understand why other dogs don't overeat, I would attribute that to their physiology. Dogs (even of the same breed) are not identical, some of them will be more predisposed to eat because their body sends signals to tell them to more so than others. Again, this goes back to the same thing I mentioned above that decisions that dogs do are not the same as humans because of the inability to fully appreciate consequences. Now let's go to the Fryoa that talks. What makes it different than say, a Drayk? Well, it depends on how intellectually developed the Fryoa is. If it has a limited vocabulary to indicate basic needs and that's it, I would consider that Fryoa to be non-intelligent. If, however, it is able to have a conversation about abstract things, then I would put it in the intelligent category. I guess to boil it down, I would say the capability to understand abstract thought. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 7099
|
written Tuesday, August 8 2006 15:25
Profile
Well, a mentally retarded person may not understand the consequences of their own actions. Im not trying tobe mean or anything, from what i understand of them, from many people's experiences, many of them can't comprehend that everything has consequences. Are they unintelligent? They're smarter than a dolphin, which is considered self aware, therefor are the 3rd most intelligent species on the planet. -------------------- I like everyone...I just like some people more than others! Posts: 60 | Registered: Wednesday, May 3 2006 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Tuesday, August 8 2006 17:20
Profile
Dolphins are capable of some very primitive abstract thought. However, if you try to convey the concepts of free market capitalism, allegory in literature, and the scientific method to one, I doubt you would succeed. Most humans above the age of 8-12 (depends on their development) can at least understand the general ideas behind the above three listed concepts. I doubt they could get all details, but then there are some adults with the same. I know it's not a firm line, but it should work generally to determine the intelligence/non-intelligence of a certain species, if we were to create such a dichotomy. As far as mentally challenged individuals, they are just "damaged" subjects of the human species. I don't see how it invalidates the argument as we have to look at the species capabilities as a whole. On one end of the distribution you have the geniuses and the other you have the extreme mentally challenged. Overall you should find that humans meets the above metric whereas dolphins do not. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 7099
|
written Tuesday, August 8 2006 18:08
Profile
Ok, i concede to your point.Wait, what are we even debating about? I dont know. So, would you agree that all creations are equally important, and should be treated equally with each other? And that humans are higher. But, not to a point that we should be mean? -------------------- I like everyone...I just like some people more than others! Posts: 60 | Registered: Wednesday, May 3 2006 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 7143
|
written Tuesday, August 8 2006 18:08
Profile
The topics of souls, of course, is purly a religious topic. I, for one, reject that the world was made for humans in specific. You can make this mean whatever you want to in your mind, but doesn't this just make us all (including animals) just destined to join a greater whole once we die? -------------------- "After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one." - Cato the Elder (234-149 BC) "The mind, if it exists, is nothing but an unfortunate after effect of the brain process." -Kripke "One should die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly." -Friedich Nietzche Posts: 333 | Registered: Saturday, May 20 2006 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 7099
|
written Tuesday, August 8 2006 18:23
Profile
I'm not going to argue about religion. Cuz I'm not affiliated with one, im just a person of a christian faith. However, Whats wrong with including religion. Arent Shapers a religious sort of sect? And religion includes science, politics, AND history. Also, in my faith, the world wasnt made for humans, we were made to rule over the animals and the world God had created. And once we die, all who have been faithful do become one in a sense that we all join in community. true peace for once. Lol. Ok, my ranting is complete -------------------- I like everyone...I just like some people more than others! Posts: 60 | Registered: Wednesday, May 3 2006 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Tuesday, August 8 2006 18:46
Profile
quote:Depends on how you define religion. Personally I would not consider it one no more than the Green Party is a religion. Granted, they both have dogmatic beliefs, but the goal of neither deals with the "supernatural". Just remember just because religion may include more aspects under some definitions does not necessarily make it a better way of ascertaining truth. I would contend it can make it worse, because it inherently can lack rigor. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Tuesday, August 8 2006 19:24
Profile
quote:There's an artilla in Fort Kentia that is on the verge of going rogue, and you can actually try to talk it into either joining you or letting you put it out of its misery peacefully. Talking artillas may be more the exception than the rule, but the fact remains that all creations can be given some level of ability to understand and respond to human speech. You never have a conversation with a vlish or roamer in game, but that doesn't mean it's inherently impossible for a sufficiently skilled shaper to give them the ability. Thaads and Battle Alphas are usually mute by default by skilled shapers can give them at least a rudimentary ability to speak and reason. Also, the abstract thought argument doesn't hold because drayks and most drakons lack empathy or remorse, meaning they're unable to understand the concept of protecting and defending the weak or general kindness. As for fyoras and roamers, I assume they'd be equivalent to dogs, and even though dogs don't have comparable intelligence to us, our possession of that intelligence allows us to think abstractly about pain and suffering and avoid doing anything inherently cruel or malicious to our pets. You can "own" a dog, but that doesn't give you the right to force it to obey whatever command you give it. If serviles deserve the same rights as humans, then all creations deserve teh same rights as natural animals of corresponding intellect. That's the only way I can see that position as logically consistent. Personally, I don't see it as inherently wrong to use the technology to create serviles to perform manual labor and augment the workforce; it's wrong to abuse that technology and treat serviles excessively cruel. Serviles get the three basic things needed for survival -- food, clothes, shelter -- on a level probably much different from what the average outsider could afford for themselves. You can argue it's wrong to destroy them when they become too intelligent, but in a sense one servile with an overactive mind could possibly ruin all serviles it meets from doing work, and if you wanted to be completely humane and sympathetic, you'd have to release the vast majority of your workforce. Intelligent serviles wouldn't be too much of a problem if they still enjoyed the work they were created to perform. You could argue they have the right to find their own place in life, but the outsiders that supervise them and work side by side with them don't have the same luxury of quitting a job the hate and living happily ever after. Geneforge takes place in a fantasy world, but fantasy doesn't imply perfect. There will always be people needed to perform work, and for the most part they will always be exploited by those who control the capital. This holds true for both human and servile. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Tuesday, August 8 2006 20:26
Profile
quote:Again, the ability to speak and understand some speech is fairly low level. A lot of creatures can communicate with very crude language like things, but that does not make them "intelligent". quote:This has got to be the most non-sequitor argument that I've heard this week. I'll break this up into a few points: I don't see any evidence that Drayks/Drakons are unable to feel empathy and remorse. They probably do with their own kind. Be that we've never played a Drayk/Drakon, it is hard to tell much about them other than what humans see. Different cultures have different values. You could say the Drakons are immoral, but that does not make them incable of abstract thought. Connecting the above paragraph, let us suppose you are a Black slave living on a plantation in the US South in 1840. You might see Whites as immoral and lacking empathy from your perspective. This is not necessarily true of course. Even if I concede the above empathy and remorse are not the only type of abstract thought. Sociopaths can still comprehend advanced mathematics, politics, etc. without having empathy/remorse. What it boils down to is a logical flaw that if you lack one compnent it necessarily destroys the whole argument. I agree empathy and remorse are part of abstract thought; however, there are many others. Being incable of one does not mean that you are incapable of doing the others in the category. If a creature is able to comprehend freedom verus slavery, physiology, aerodynamics, etc. I would put them in the ability to understand abstract thought despite lacking a couple others. quote:True. Being cruel to "lesser" beings is unnecessary and can lead to destructive behavior to others. Now, there is nothing inherently unethical of having animals carry out dangerous tasks or ones that humans are physically not suited to do. Also, raising animals for slaughter is not unethical either. I would contend, however, that raising humans (or other sentient beings as defined above) just to do for slaughter would be over the line in terms of ethics. As far as doing dangerous tasks, it depends I suppose. If it is incapable of pain/suffering (say a robot) then it may be allowed. This would come down to a case by case basis. quote:Yes. The fact that we make an animal through genetic engineering or fairie dust does not make that animal inferior or different than other animals. If we make an improved horse, that does not give us the right to be unnecessarily cruel to it. [ Tuesday, August 08, 2006 20:33: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 7143
|
written Tuesday, August 8 2006 21:07
Profile
Just playing devil's advocate here: i*, just because something can't talk doesn't mean much really... Vlish are superbly intellegent but they don't have the means of communication. It is like with animals, they don't have the correct vocal cords to speak as humans do, and yet a gorilla can learn sign language which means they can understand and (if given the right means) can communicate themselves. -------------------- "After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one." - Cato the Elder (234-149 BC) "The mind, if it exists, is nothing but an unfortunate after effect of the brain process." -Kripke "One should die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly." -Friedich Nietzche Posts: 333 | Registered: Saturday, May 20 2006 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Wednesday, August 9 2006 03:29
Profile
Keep in mind by intelligent I'm meaning sentient. Talking is not required. Abstract thought is. Yes, gorrilas and dolphins are capable of rudimentary language skills, but I doubt you will find one capable of learning and comprehending calculus. Vlish are the same way, "intelligent" relative to other creations. However, I don't see any sign of them being more than just a roamer with psionic abilities. The difference between a Gazer and a Vlish is much more than eyes and a mouth I contend. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Loyal Underling
Member # 13
|
written Wednesday, August 9 2006 04:49
Profile
When you "talk" to the artilas and rogue creations, they don't understand you. You're using your shaper mind powers to control them. -------------------- [i]Great Potato[/i] "Unless by the force of eloquence they mean the force of truth; for if such is their meaning, I admit that I am eloquent." -- Socrates Posts: 126 | Registered: Thursday, September 27 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 7143
|
written Wednesday, August 9 2006 09:14
Profile
No offence i*, but you probably should have put in mathematics instead of calculas in your last post. Most of the human population probably wouldn't be able to learn calculus. Also, how many serviles or drakons would be able to learn calculus? -------------------- "After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one." - Cato the Elder (234-149 BC) "The mind, if it exists, is nothing but an unfortunate after effect of the brain process." -Kripke "One should die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly." -Friedich Nietzche Posts: 333 | Registered: Saturday, May 20 2006 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Wednesday, August 9 2006 12:31
Profile
quote:This goes back to the fallacy of one part missing means the whole is as well. Suppose 5% of the human population can learn calculus, this means that as a species we are, in principle capable of abstract thought. Each and every human being incable of comprehending each and every abstract thought out there does not imply that humans as a whole cannot comprehend abstract thought. I contend it does not matter how many can learn calculus, as long as some can learn some abstract thoughts beyond basic instinct or programmed instructions. For example, my computer has programs that allow it to do calculus. Does that make it intelligent? Definitely not. The computer is only able to follow rigorous instructions. It is unable to develop methods to solve calculus problems that have yet to be solved because it cannot "understand" the theory behind calculus, it can only do what it is told. Humans, on the other hand, do not have preset instructions for calculus, we think about it abstractly. Back to GF, Serviles and Drakons clearly understand the concept political freedom and liberty, an abstract concept. I doubt any animal (or my computer for that matter) could really understand that beyond being in a cage or from very specific instructions. From what we've seen of the Serviles and Drakons, they tend to be quite articulate. Serviles in GF2 were able (with the help of Tulderac) develop and breed their own Drakons to defend Drypeak. Likewise the Drayks and Drakons could comprehend genetics well enough to refine themselves as well as create things like Rotghoths. Such things I would put as requiring abstract thought. [ Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:32: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7333
|
written Wednesday, August 9 2006 12:50
Profile
quote:In the conversation with Hurka in the Breeding Caverns, if you've become addicted to canisters she mentions how it eventually takes away "your" species (note how she specifically says "your") ability to feel compassion and sympathy for "lesser creatures." If you press her for how to cure the effects or reverse the changes, she only asks why you would care or would want to. Then there's the Geneforge and the surrounding labs, which routinely performed shaping experiments on how to make more powerful drakons, and mentions the experiments that resulted in failure, i.e. a deformed monstrosity that died either during or shortly after it creation, and what it was believed to be the cause of their death. Like being shaped without a head, for instance. Drakons clearly lack empathy for what they consider lesser creatures, and they barely have enough for each other if they're willing to sacrifice the lives of their own kind in the name of science. Also, they aren't much different from Shapers because Omen Eye will tell you it was created and enslaved by Akhari Blaze, and forced to guard Agatha and the other captured Shapers. Sure, they might be able to do calculus, quantum physics, open heart surgery, write deep metaphor-rich allegorical poems, or sing songs about the joys of eating and devouring humans. My point was the ability to think abstractly wasn't enough criteria to determine if an intelligence to be allowed to exist if it doesn't understand the most important thing of all: why it shouldn't go around terrorizing and eating any lesser intelligences it may encounter. quote:In that time period it would probably be a safe bet as a runaway slave to assume all Whites would betray them and turn them in if given the chance. Sure, there were abolitionists and Quakers, but the fact is the vast majority would be lacking in empathy, especially if they could rationalize to themselves the enslavement and torture of human beings and use religion and "science" to prove how they must be subhuman. It doesn't matter if they actually owned the plantation or worked as an overseer. It was ingrained into American society (including the North) that African people weren't human and there was no need to feel sympathy or pity for them. It was a culture that invented minstrel shows, lynchings, Slave Codes, The Fugitive Slave Act, and the Grandfather Clause. Black people weren't even allowed to vote in the South until about 50 years ago. There are exceptions to every rule, but a slave living in the Antebellum South would have perceived White people in general to be immoral because at that time the vast majority were immoral. quote:And we have a place in society for sociopaths that act out on their disregard for life; prison. The worst of which either serve life terms or receive death sentences. It doesn't matter how "smart" someone is if they're seen as a threat to society. We remove their ability to do harm to the average citizen by placing them institutions where they can either learn to feel and express empathy or spend the rest of their days among other dangerous, amoral individuals. quote:What it does mean is that such a being is a ticking time bomb waiting for the right provocation to set them off. It's bad enough preventing human criminals from doing harm to society. Imagine trying to capture and imprison a 2 ton fire breathing lizard. quote:I fail to see how that means they're unable to understand love, friendship, kindness, anger, or hate. I also don't see why having "thoughts about thoughts" is more important than simply having "thoughts." If you treat a dog kindly it's entire life, it'll form a bond and want to spend time with you. Treat it cruelly, and eventually it'll start attacking you on site. It doesn't matter if the dog can think "I like/hate so and so because..." as long as it can form the attachment or repulsion based on prior experiences. quote:Your Shaper mind abilities allow you to influence how they respond and control their thoughts if it's strong enough (think about Jedi mind tricks). They actually do have the ability to communicate, even if only rudimentarily. Posts: 49 | Registered: Thursday, July 27 2006 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 7143
|
written Wednesday, August 9 2006 17:52
Profile
Even though animals are not able to comprehend our politics, doesn't mean they don't have almost equally complex politics either. Many animals do have social structures that basically integrate politics as part of it. Think of merekats, gorillas, several types of monkeys, and several others. PS Dolphins share in common with us a rare trait in which they have sex for pleasure whenever they wish, and form complex relationships. -------------------- "After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one." - Cato the Elder (234-149 BC) "The mind, if it exists, is nothing but an unfortunate after effect of the brain process." -Kripke "One should die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly." -Friedich Nietzche Posts: 333 | Registered: Saturday, May 20 2006 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Wednesday, August 9 2006 18:40
Profile
I'm saying they share some in common, but they cannot comprehend much of what we can. I'm certain their politics are much simpler than ours, they cannot comprehend the issues we can. Their politics is definitely not "equally complex". Again, you are grasping at minor details and very specific examples I give and not the big picture. Sure, you will find similar things elsewhere as you get "closer" to humans in an evolutionary sense. I doubt you will find any other species with the ability to ponder and analyze the universe around them which is huge in being self-aware. [ Wednesday, August 09, 2006 18:47: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 5814
|
written Wednesday, August 9 2006 20:22
Profile
quote:Drakons can match humans in terms of intellect, right? So assuming that humans sympathize because of their intelligence, Drakons should have the capability as well. I think it's safe to assume that humans sympathise because I think they examine the situation and realize that it could have been them, or they had a loved one who was in the same situation, etc., meaning that they think about the facts as they are percieved and use their experience to decide what to do. You say (at least, I hope you say; my reputation can't take another accusation that I'm misrepresenting things, much less gleefully) that Drakons, because they show no evidence of feeling empathy, must not be able to. But then, if you take capitalism to an extreme level with any hypothetical society, you get pretty much the same result; even if that society were hypothetically human. And if you oppress a group of humans (say, a race) and make them aware of their oppression, they will lose empathy for those who oppressed them. So in short, I blame Drakon greed (which becomes extreme capitalism) and oppression for their lack of symapthy. quote:I dispute the belief that, because they kill one of their own, they must be short on empathy. Watch this. Style 1) Well, that was its purpose. Drakons made it, they should have a right to decide how it lives and dies and even if it has to work for them in dangerous conditions. It may seem a little extreme, but they acted within their rights as creators. Style 2) The only thing that suffered for its creation was the creation itself. Since the creation died, there is in effect nothing which is in pain for related reasons or remembers pain for related reasons. -------------------- quote: Posts: 1115 | Registered: Sunday, May 15 2005 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 2245
|
written Thursday, August 10 2006 03:53
Profile
Homepage
Text: quote:Sorry to butt in, but I see a few questionable assumptions are being thrown about. I don't agree with the assertion that intelligence is proportional to the ability to feel compassion. From what I understand, intelligence is the ability to mentally adapt to one's surroundings. Hence, the ability to feel empathy isn't necessarily related to intelligence. I'd say that a brilliant sociopath such as Hannibal Lector is more intelligence than the average human being. Personally, I think it's pushing it to say that Drakons can't feel empathy. I think that they do feel empathy, but choose to ignore it for the 'greater good'. Pawns must die in a game of chess. Unfortunate, but necessary. -------------------- VIVE LA TAKERS! VIVE LA REBELLION! VIVE LA GHALDRING! Posts: 522 | Registered: Friday, November 15 2002 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 7067
|
written Thursday, August 10 2006 04:33
Profile
Well, Savage Ed Walcott did point out something. It is that the rebels don't treat their creations any better than shapers. It says that a number of times through out the three games. The only time I can think of it not being so is when the rebels let that Battle Gamma live it's life out when it was deformed. Though you could say it was cruel to do that because the extreme amount of pain it would feel before it died. However, I found an example of extremely intelligent creations that are made by shapers and even (in a way) honored by shapers. The servant minds! -------------------- "You shall be my servant with a mind!!! Eventually."-The crazy person behind me. Posts: 153 | Registered: Monday, April 24 2006 07:00 |