|
8 months ago ::
Oct 17, 2012 - 10:32AM
#101
|
Date Joined:
Sep 10, 2006
|
So, are we done learning about multiperspectivism yet?
Good in EDH
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 17, 2012 - 3:58PM
#102
|
|
|
So, are we done learning about multiperspectivism yet?
No. Two opinions enter. Only one may leave.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 17, 2012 - 4:41PM
#103
|
|
|
As fun as this is, it really is tangental to the discussion.  I apologize for getting the country wrong. I meant to refer to this effect: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WeAl...I go to start a new thread about the topic of "Obviously Evil".
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal. Rule that I would change: 204.1b
Show
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update"
We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better. Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 17, 2012 - 4:48PM
#104
|
|
|
You'll note that the motives and intentions of the specific person commiting the act is the deciding factor and not the form of the action itself based on the definition you yourself just referenced.
Why yes, that's perfectly true. If we were looking ot tell if a given act actually is evil, we'd have to look at the intent.
Is that what we're doing? Not at all.
I'll say it one more time, hoping it'll be clearer this way : I don't give a damn about whether or not the act is actually evil. That is completely irrelevant to the point. Again, completely irrelevant. I'm talking about the initial reaction, the face-value, the first thing that springs to mind, and I can guarantee you that intent is not something ou see at first glance. Sure, you can justify murder with self-defense or such, but if you saw someone running a knife through someone's heart on the street, your initial reaction wouldn't be "I guess he might have had good reason for that". You will say "God, he just killed him! I'll call the police! Oh, maybe he had a reason..." See the thing here?
Things that black does are more evil in appearance. I'm not talking about if it is evil or not. That has to take intent into consideration and will most certainly be incredibly difficult to agree upon, as each person has a different view of what's evil or not going into so much details.
How can something appear evil if we can all agree that we do not have enough information to say whether or not it is evil?
You could easily say something is dark, grim, macabre, grusome, or morbid. Some of those are just opinions, but they are adjectives that describe things you can see.
But I still havent seen any explanation for how someone can even say that something "looks evil". What does this mean? What does "evil" look like?
Certainly someone might say it if they are mistakenly misusing the word, or even simply misspoke. However you clearly cant see intentions with your eyes, so its impossible for them to "look like" anything.
My decks
Show
Comments or suggestions are always welcome
Legacy
Show
Modern
Show
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 17, 2012 - 5:13PM
#105
|
Date Joined:
Sep 23, 2011
|
@Dilleux_Lepaire Once again. You're referring to what the majority believes (at least based on your experiences and research). You can't use that to prove anything subjective, including what the initial reaction to an event is (because it varies among people). Furthermore I don't think the common initial reaction to someone stabbing another person is "Holy crap, that guy is evil." In fact, people will often abandon complex moral decision making in heat of the moment situations like this, stabbing induces fear and protective instincts in most people, judgment is reserved until later. And people call the police because a person could have done evil, not because they did. And a second once again. Even if black has a lot of cards that are evil at face value that does not make black itself evil at face value. You can call someone's actions evil without calling the person themselves evil, because people are more than one action. If a girl walked up and slapped another girl on the playground would you think "That girl is the embodiment of evil, everything she does must be evil." The question is whether it is a necessity of a black card to appear evil, but it isn't. It can't be really, because evil is different to everyone, it is subjective.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 17, 2012 - 6:25PM
#106
|
Date Joined:
Sep 28, 2007
|
Hey guys, just like to point out there was a seperate thread made for this discussion.
Resident Piggles Zombie piggy is eatin' your sigs om nom nom (>*o*)> MTG Card
Show
Front:
PigKnight, One Line Poster (3W)
Legendary Creature - Boar Knight
Vigilance
When this creature dies, return him to play and transform him.
(2/3)
>(5/3)<
Back:
(Black)ZombiePiggles, Eater of Tomato Sauce
Legendary Creature - Boar Knight Zombie
Trample, Intimidate
B: Regenerate this creature.
When this creature is the target of a white spell, transform this creature.
(5/3)
|
|
|
