Elite is... Kind of Dumb

Gonna stop you right here; post-structuralism is wrong; not all viewpoints are equal or valid. It is entirely reasonable to make concrete moral claims based upon personal and historical experience.

I'm going to save you a lot of embarrassment. Stop arguing with me on an internet forum, start reading. Start with Arelus, move on to Diogenes, study western theology, go to the existentialists from there. Nietzche, of course, but also de Beauvoir, read Lock, read Paine. They're boring, but you are clearly not equipped for a debate on epistemology and viewpoint theory.
I didn't say all viewpoints are equally valid, did I? I said it was arrogant to simply assume yours was the correct one. If you can make "concrete" moral claims based on YOUR personal experience then so can everybody else... all of whom happen to have different experiences which may lead to very different conclusions. The world is full of zealots who are absolutely certain they could create heaven on Earth if they just got everybody to follow their One True Path.

You assume that because I disagree with you I haven't read any of the things you've read. My casual mention of the Greek concept of arete should have been enough of a clue to show that I have more than a superficial knowledge of ancient philosophy. I'm also something of a fan of the Stoics. As an anarchist I've read plenty of John Locke's work. Daniel Dennett's modern study of the phenomenon of consciousness is fascinating stuff as well. See, I can name drop too. "Study western theology"? I grew up in the Baptist church before becoming an atheist. What do you think I'll read in a book that a decade of Sunday services didn't teach me? I've read the Bible cover to cover. Don't recall anything in it that in any way refutes what I've posted here.
 
I'm going to save you a lot of embarrassment. Stop arguing with me on an internet forum, start reading. Start with Arelus, move on to Diogenes, study western theology, go to the existentialists from there. Nietzche, of course, but also de Beauvoir, read Lock, read Paine. They're boring, but you are clearly not equipped for a debate on epistemology and viewpoint theory.
I think you mean Aurelius, Nietzsche, and Locke?
 
Buddy, I don't know how to tell you this, but how many people do you really think do the CGs? If any of these civilizations existed at a realistic scale, they would have more people hauling than there are people on earth and haulers capable of moving 25 million tonnes of hydrogen in a single trip. Everything in Elite is too small for the level of technology we see.



Stay Frosty,



Cmnd Fulsom
Doesn't it show specifically how many cmdrs have contributed how much?

Also, it's laughable when one attempts to play video games but refuses suspension of disbelief
 
I don't know, you are saying a person 1000 years from the future would rule the current world within one day. In the meantime, if you would send someone from today a thousand years to the past, he probably wouldn't survive for one day...
I really wish to know how we came to that kind of discussion.

No, nevermind, I don't think I want to know.
 
I also feel the need to point out that "changing Jupiter's properties" or piling another 84 Jupiters on top of it to create a sun is "turning Jupiter into a star" the same way piling flour, and salt, and vanilla, and yeast on top of an egg is "turning an egg into a cake". It's an extraordinarily loose interpretation of the concept of turning X into Y. If X doesn't account for the majority of Y then X is merely an ingredient in a recipe, not a thing which has been altered.
 
I- I can't tell if this is shallow thinking or a fundamental lack of imagination. You can't have a setting where one of the fundamental laws of physics is broken constantly, but everything else is the same because FTL changes everything.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. And you accuse me of shallow thinking and lack of imagination? Yes, you can have such a world. A lot of very good science fiction is based on such a premise - one change to reality as we know it but otherwise intact, and exploring the implications of that. To be stuck with "everything's the same as reality as we know it, or everything's changed" - now that's a big lack of imagination, black and white absolute simplicity.

Exploring the implications of such is an absolute tour de force of imagination. Throwing all the rules out to enable one thing - well, it requires very little imagination of ability to do that in comparison. No thought required whatsoever if you throw consistency and logic to the four winds.
 
Last edited:
I don't know, you are saying a person 1000 years from the future would rule the current world within one day. In the meantime, if you would send someone from today a thousand years to the past, he probably wouldn't survive for one day...
Considering the increasing levels of technological dependence I think as time goes by people will stand less and less chance of survival if sent to the past. We've already got plenty of people who fall to pieces if they go half an hour without a working mobile phone.
 
Back
Top Bottom