[OT] The Art of Winning Games

[Cyrien]

Yep... and the Maxim Machine Gun was created to end wars due to the incredible increase in the ability to kill people, the first one fired a symbolic 666 bullets a minute. And one of the first designers of ballistae in ancient times thought the same... and probably numerous others.

Personally I think people should get the hint. Humans beings are not going to stop hurting and fighting each other. And that is the way it is. Look in nature and try to find a creature that does not engage in violence. Violence is hard coded into nature. With humans it is just much worse because we can think of better ways to hurt each other.

Hrmm... that was a nice little OT.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

that's why technology will never come up with the solution - any technology can be used for good or evil. it's the people that are the critical part.

[Puke]

Originally posted by Erax:
And while I agree that wargames are a training for war, I think you're still standing too close to the forest. The purpose of games is the same as that of fiction : to allow you to make the choices you would have to make in a dangerous situation, without placing yourself in actual danger.

Sorry to nitpick, but think you just described a training tool. if I was to come up with a counter arguement, it would have been something along the lines of "well sure, Napoleon played them to simulate battles, and Chess was originally a game for kings and tacticians, but I play them to have FUN, and so does everyone else on this board. what crawled up your arse and died, puke?"

of course, you're more polite than me.

Originally posted by Narf:
that's why technology will never come up with the solution - any technology can be used for good or evil. it's the people that are the critical part.

yes, but people are only unreliable when you expect too much of them. if you rely on their baser natures, you wont be let down nearly as often. and for your requisite sarcasm about how to find safety from technology and what to do about that pesky progress, i will defer to another source:

Originally written by H.P.L.:[/qb]The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

[/qb]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

most people, P, tend towards good. even those who are evil. why? because very feel evil people think of themselves as evil. they come up with a rationalization and as much as rationalization's reveal a weakness, they also come about because few people want to be evil. there may be more hope for people than you think.

[Puke]

i didnt say people were evil. i dont even believe in good and bad. i said that people are more reliable when you are counting on them to be more base. everyone has certain fundamental animal instincts, such as greed, lust, selfishness, cowardace, etc.

yes, those are ugly words, but they refer to universal evolutionary qualities. society progresses because of the individual desire to acquire and achieve - those that direct their energies towards the benefit of a group, do so because it is their best bet for gain - and because someone is leading that group and encouraging them to do so on their behalf. people have an evolutionary desire to procreate, people have basic fight / fight / posture / submit instincts that dictate their behavior in stressfull situations, and in pack relationships.

you can count on all these things. people are reliable when you expect animal behavior out of them. people are not so reliable, when you expect chivalry and courage, persistance and extra effort, charity and grace. sure there are individuals that have these qualities, but their ultimate motives can usually be deconstructed down to evolutionary imparatives, as well. and even if not, they are the exception rather than the rule. people as a whole dont act that way. except maybe in Canada.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

people as a whole dont act that way. except maybe in Canada.

why thank you. i was already sure we where the Last hope for civilization.

however, good and evil don't go along clear lines of instinct and higher traits. the urge to procreate can lead to well-adjusted children. the urge to be persistent can lead one into situations one shouldn't have gotten into. in my opinion, good is when all emotions and thoughts that are good and usefull are in there proper places and balance. evil starts occurring when one or more are stronger or weaker than they should be, or are used when they shouldn't be. evil can be being to cynical towards other people, or even, in my opinion, being so nice your blind to other's faults, which tends to make them worse.

[Loser]

The war-game was actually invented by H. G. Wells, a pacifist, to quell man's desire for war. I'll get links for this later, maybe.

[Narratio]

I don't think that there is such a thing as "good" or "evil". It's just points of view. Hitler didn't think that slaughting multi millions was a bad thing, he thought he was doing a service to the Arayan race. From his point of vew he was "good". Genghis Khan took his lads for a stroll across Europe for perfectly good reasons in his opinion. The people being raped, looted and killed would have called him evil, he didn't think so, neither did his supporters.

Also, the concepts of "good" and "evil" change with time. Slavery these days is considered a moral outrage (EVIL) by the western media and intelligentisia (not neccesarily the mass of people though). But it was a fine idea to the Aztecs, Inca, most west African kingdoms through the 1900's, Roman Empire, various Chinese dynasties and modern day arab governments. All of whom think it's neccesary. Cannibalism is held to be evil by our western cultures, the cannibal cultures think there is a reason for it though, otherwise they wouldn't do it. For them it's not evil, it's a religious experience and thus "good".

So "Good" and "Evil" appear to be viewpoints with no set values positive or negative except those of the people involved. It appears to become worse with the pasing of time. Individual "W" who, during their life was a loved / respected / disliked / hated person (as everyone else) becomes, over time, an icon for something or other "good" (Washington and truth). Then they get revisited and they change into things to be reviled (Washington and slavery), which again changes to be something else (Washington and his illegitimate children perhaps?).

So, no good, no evil, just viewpoints up close and personal or 1,000 years later in a "standardised" school text book.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

my other opinion is that people who argue that there isn't good or evil need to be hit on the head with a hammer. but that would be evil.

[Fyron]

Moral relativism only goes so far...