03-29-2009, 08:32 PM
Hi,
Consider: A is bad. B could lead to A, so B must be banned. But C could lead to B, so C must be banned. And so fourth. In practical terms, the chain often is terminated when the absurdity reaches a high enough level (a ban on cooking a kid in its mother's milk leading to splitting a kitchen into 'meat' and 'dairy' parts).
Or, as LennyLen put it, "As for the slippery slope argument, it's been said more than once that if you want to play Diablo truly 'legit' then never take it out of the box. Let common sense rule."
You do know what 'common sense' is, don't you?
--Pete
Quote:First I don't want to redefine variants.But when you say things like " . . . real IM is that one without reusing shrines, going back to level 1 for puryfying spring, storing items in town." then redefining Ironman is exactly what you are doing. That you add, "But it is just my opinion." just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. You cannot have an opinion about what Ironman is, because Ironman is already defined by a set of rules. You may have an opinion about the rules, whether you think they are too easy or too hard, or whether any of them should be modified. But if you change any of the rules, then you are no longer playing Ironman. You are playing a game that may be based on Ironman, may be a superset or a subset of Ironman, may be harder or easier. You are free to take those rules, publish them, argue them, whatever. You are free to give those rules a new name (say 'Steelman' or 'Superironman'). You are not free to say, in effect, that those that do not play by your rules are not playing Ironman, or not playing it correctly.
Quote:For me spirit of IM is . . .No one really gives a crap. Ironman is a *game* played by a set of *rules*. It is not a philosophical system or an oriental religion. You don't have to take advantage of all the rules allow, but you cannot force your self imposed limitations on the remainder of the players.
Quote:And if you cannot realize what opening some doors in philosophy, social life (yes, D1 have communities, right?) and law (legitimacy) has effect on others I have one word for you "corruption" which shall explain what i mean.Basically, that is the 'slippery slope' argument which no intelligent person really accepts. The reason is that it leads, inevitably, to a regress that is either infinite, absurd, or both.
Consider: A is bad. B could lead to A, so B must be banned. But C could lead to B, so C must be banned. And so fourth. In practical terms, the chain often is terminated when the absurdity reaches a high enough level (a ban on cooking a kid in its mother's milk leading to splitting a kitchen into 'meat' and 'dairy' parts).
Or, as LennyLen put it, "As for the slippery slope argument, it's been said more than once that if you want to play Diablo truly 'legit' then never take it out of the box. Let common sense rule."
You do know what 'common sense' is, don't you?
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?