(20-07-2016, 09:12 PM)[UK]_Kaas Wrote: [ -> ](...)If you play NI only for the loots, you are statistically going to have a bad time. (...)
(20-07-2016, 10:39 PM)CaptOle Wrote: [ -> ](...) we all have room for improvement. (...) we all have natural tendencies as human beings to be jealous and envious of others. However, the real reason I wanted to create this thread is so people are more cognizant of things they say, and how it affects the people around them. (...) give a little empathy and put yourself in someone else's shoes.
That, best summary.
Enjoy the game whatever comes guys and help other to have fun, too.
I guess it takes more than twenty posts before anyone will question what this has to do with ethics (which is defined as the moral code that dictates right and wrong behavior). At least change the title to "Being Saccharin and Fake Nice."
I do believe the purpose of this thread and CaptOle's goal is to point out some behaviour that he believes is wrong and to suggest the right way of conduct. Put differently: he wishes the community members to follow some "moral code" in their actions. Goes quite fine with the definition mentioned above as far as I'm concerned.
On the 2nd thought: who really cares that linguistic acrobatics? It might be more availing to stay on topic. Or maybe it's just me.
(22-07-2016, 07:37 PM)Bobo Wrote: [ -> ]I do believe the purpose of this thread and CaptOle's goal is to point out some behaviour that he believes is wrong and to suggest the right way of conduct. Put differently: he wishes the community members to follow some "moral code" in their actions. Goes quite fine with the definition mentioned above as far as I'm concerned.
On the 2nd thought: who really cares that linguistic acrobatics? It might be more availing to stay on topic. Or maybe it's just me.
"Linguistic acrobatics" like what you just performed to arbitrarily redefine "moral?" Thanks for the double standard. Wink.
Even still, it's simply not the definition of "ethics."
(22-07-2016, 07:37 PM)Bobo Wrote: [ -> ]I do believe the purpose of this thread and CaptOle's goal is to point out some behaviour that he believes is wrong and to suggest the right way of conduct. Put differently: he wishes the community members to follow some "moral code" in their actions. Goes quite fine with the definition mentioned above as far as I'm concerned.
On the 2nd thought: who really cares that linguistic acrobatics? It might be more availing to stay on topic. Or maybe it's just me.
I don't think "linguistic acrobatics" was really the point of his post.
(22-07-2016, 07:42 PM)Malong Wrote: [ -> ]"Linguistic acrobatics" like what you just performed to arbitrarily redefine "moral?" Thanks for the double standard. Wink.
Even still, it's simply not the definition of "ethics."
You're just being annoying and pushing thread off topic. Seriously, nobody but you cares.
(23-07-2016, 12:16 AM)Ribbed Wrote: [ -> ] (22-07-2016, 07:42 PM)Malong Wrote: [ -> ]"Linguistic acrobatics" like what you just performed to arbitrarily redefine "moral?" Thanks for the double standard. Wink.
Even still, it's simply not the definition of "ethics."
You're just being annoying and pushing thread off topic. Seriously, nobody but you cares.
Nobody cares but the people who replied and quoted me or the reply that quoted me. But I'm not particularly surprised that someone who can't use logic in math (average out the mean guys!) finds the use of logic on forums to be "annoying."
(23-07-2016, 12:27 AM)Malong Wrote: [ -> ] (23-07-2016, 12:16 AM)Ribbed Wrote: [ -> ] (22-07-2016, 07:42 PM)Malong Wrote: [ -> ]"Linguistic acrobatics" like what you just performed to arbitrarily redefine "moral?" Thanks for the double standard. Wink.
Even still, it's simply not the definition of "ethics."
You're just being annoying and pushing thread off topic. Seriously, nobody but you cares.
Nobody cares but the people who replied and quoted me or the reply that quoted me. But I'm not particularly surprised that someone who can't use logic in math (average out the mean guys!) finds the use of logic on forums to be "annoying."
I was unaware the use of logic required you to be an asshole all of the time. Thanks for the insight.
Keep this thread on topic or it will be moderated