Choosing DarkElven path + alternative ending

Duly noted, Rain-Dog. Let the record show I was just opposing Constipation, rather than forwarding my personal view.

Now, I'm not one to bandy around baseless accusations but...

Does this Constipation character, his date of joining and his gratuitous use of the word "nigger" ring any bells?

 

I also have suspicions of Constipation, just observing his posts, whether it's not his inclination to insult and offend others.
Intelligent criticising is one thing, bad words and offending is another.

I respect the critique of my work by you, Rain-dog and you, Muro, but bad words Constipation was giving, aren't necessary at all.

 

Oh boohoo, babby is offended, whatever shall we do.

Truth sure is painful, isn't it? Should I use more lube next time?

I must be missing some in-joke here. Way to make me feel excluded. Now I'm gonna have to an hero.

 

That loading screens appears before we get to know his true plans and motifs, though.

That is true, but only because all living beings in Arcanum have limited knowledge about the nature of life and death. They would think that he's evil, but that alone does not make him evil.

I think so, as long as the person in question would have an open mind and would be willing to hear Kerghan out.

 

So you think you just escape righteousness? Had I the power of admins or moderators, I would make sure you wouldn't escape immediate ban, and also all those who would not agree with me or anyone who would advocate you - for all those offensive words, not towards me, but towards anyone, damn renegade!

 

You'll get yours, Constipation!

 

So you would ban anyone who has the audacity to disagree with you. If your goal was to inform everyone that you are an immature brat incapable of dealing with interpersonal situations than congratulations, it has been fully achieved.

 

I love debates where the clear loser is in heavy, heavy denial. It's delicious.

EDIT: Oh right, people appreciate it if my posts have content.

Kerghan, in my humble opinion, was NOT evil.
He was a Well-Intentioned Extremist in every sense. Hell, his goal was eternal peace and an end to all suffering. His worldview was FAR more expansive than any mortal's, he had evidence to back his claims and a clear, rational goal. Was it extreme? Yes. Would I, in his position, agree with his methods? No. The fact remains that I can easily see his position.

 

Why wouldn't you agree with his methods?

 

I am of the opinion that everybody has their own choice to make, and it does not fall to anybody to make their decisions for them. That's the root of why I wouldn't agree.

 

Surely, if you're of the opinion that everybody has their own choices to make, you're of the opinion that (among other things) Kerghan can make his own choices, and, so, of the opinion that he can choose to go about things by his methods, which, in turn, is being of the opinion that people can choose to take others' choices from them, since that's the former's choice.

 

I'm the Admin who does the most banning these days. There's positively nothing righteous about me. Now, that isn't to say I'm not tossing around the idea of banning Constipation, but that's because he's a low-quality troll, and I insist upon nothing but the finest of pests for this forum.

In short:

Gildorn: You wrote a huge wall of text I couldn't be arsed to read, and whined when you got mocked for it. Nut up or shut up.

Constipation: You're a shitty troll. I mean, seriously. Get your act together, and agitate people and cause drama, or I'm banning your ass for being fucking incompetent. I suppose you could be just a normal forum member, but I doubt you have that in you.

Everyone else: Resume discussion based upon Gildorn's tl;dr. Oh, and fuck you all.

 

Absolutely not. While you can be of that disposition, if you act on it you are then violating the choices and decisions others have made, and individual rights are the most inviolable thing I can think of. So, no, no man may make another's decision. Despite this, I understand his motivations, even if I heartily disagree with his methods.

 

Hold on there! So you can't do that? The decision is made for you that you can't make that decision, to protect the right of people to always make their own decisions?

 

Which is precisely why it is wrong to violate the rights of others and take their choice away from them. Before you get on me about violating the rights of murderers and thieves, they forfeit their rights when they violate the rights (To life, property, etc.) of others.

 

Oh, now I see! Everybody can make their own choices, depending on the choices they make! So you can make any right choice you want; but you can't make any wrong choices! "Any colour as long as it's black", like! All the choice in the world, as long as you choose the right one!

 

My problem is when a choice one makes violates the ability of another human to make a choice. So, not "Any color as long as it's black" But instead "Any color as long as you don't murder the guy next to you."

 

Oh right; so, 'any choice as long as it's one of our pre-approved selection'. Everybody has absolute freedom, within limits. "Pick a card! Any card! —But not that one."

 

I never said there was absolute freedom. With any choice, there are choices that are out of bounds, and punishment is appropos. In this case, the rules revolve around not taking the freedom that we do have away from others. If you're playing baseball and you're up to bat, you can swing at the ball or not. You cannot, within the rules of the game, opt to run up and give the pitcher a blowjob.

 

I want that rule cited, or I simply won't accept it!

Oh—Oh! So people are allowed a selection of choices; ones that don't infringe on the rights of others by taking their choices away from them; and if somebody tries to do that, you take the choice away from them, to protect the choices of others. How paradoxical.

Where do kids' choices come into this? and the choices of the insane? Where's the yardstick which measures when we get to makes our own choices and which choices we can then make? Who chooses that? Can people choose to take drugs? Can they then make their own choices, while under the influence? What about suicide? What's the criterion for someone who's of sound mind enough to make the decision to take their own life?