Is there any female here at all?

[Dick Reece]

OLD FOGIES ;D !!!!! I resemble that remark deeply !

Actually, I'm proud to be an old fogie, and did I tell you I was also born in a town named Muskogie ?

I fear you are right regarding current trends in society, and the cyberworld seems to encourage that "in your face" behaviour that FuTbOLhEAD spoke of earlier.It occurs now even in the Older generations, you and I are proof of that.

Dick

No bets on the other thing, no sense encouraging any in your face behaviour on anyone's part

[FutbolHead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dick Reece:

FutBolhead!!! ,

I have to tell you, this is the best thread I've read on this forum to date, mainly due to [iMHO]and thanks to your contributions as well as a few others [ Fionn,etc.].Very interesting, enlightening reading, and I see many of my own ideas and thoughts expressed in your words.Thanks for the good read.

I would,however,like to expand upon one comment which I agree with:

<I could give a rat's behind what other's expectations of me are, I have to live with my conscience and what I do. Their hangups are their problems.>

I agree with this totally.The problem then boils down to values and morals within ourselves.I used to wonder quite often how in the world people could shoot others in cold blood while robbing them for 2 dollars and 20 cents,or how they could con old people for a living? It finally dawned on me [ so I'm slow, so what ]that these people have no morals or values, or at least not a valid set, and that's why they're able to do what they do.They have no conscience they must listen to, no inner voice other than one continually spurring them on [ Bill Gates comes to mind, or some of the Talonsoft "brains" behind the resale campaign series "add-ons" ] to do whatever it takes to "get ahead".They answer to "self", just as we do,only there "self" has no checks and balances, no roadmap of morals or values.

And how was our conscience first formed? By others [parents,relatives,teachers,friends] who explained there "expectations" of us, to us.They also taught us what society expects.The problem is, many weren't taught, and many who were had no guiding inner voice willing to listen,or taught themselves to deny it's existence and obtain there goals by any road possible.The cyber experience is making this much worse I believe, for the reasons you've stated so well in all your prior posts above.

Anyhow,again, thanks for a good read .

Dick

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for comments.

Regarding the concepts of "morals or values", I heard an interesting commentary about the them one day on the radio. They are not as interchangeable as they may seem. Morals tend to have a basis in behavior which is expressed in terms or "goodness" or "badness" or "character or virtue". Value systems can be anything. You can have a value system that says that your acquisition of wealth is the most important thing in your life, but that's hardly considered noble or in many ways moral. I would hazard a guess that everyone has some sort of "value system". Morals may more closely be compared to virtues. Virtues are what alot of people are lacking in these days, not values.

And yes, in large, we develop our conscience from what our parents and others teach us. However, my concept of an "evil" person isn't necessarily one who didn't have the benefit of being taught to have a conscience, but one who knows right and wrong and just doesn't care. From a philosophical standpoint, it is my belief that we have an inate capacity to understand the greater concepts of "right" and "wrong". Some people are probably more in touch with those ideans, some less. There are those that argue you can't have morality without having gotten it from some religious doctrine. Dr. Laura comes to mind. I am very much a fan of listening to her show, but that is a point on which I tend to differ with her. The problem today with establishing my position is that Judeo-Christian morals are so engrained within our society, that it's hard for any individual to show that the development of their moral guidelines were not in some way affected Judeo-Christian morals.

I don't believe there is any ethical way to conduct a study on people to see that if they were untainted by the thinkings of previous societies would they still develop a sense or a system of morality or righteousness. Thus, I take this concept on "faith" in the same sense that Christains have faith in Christ. I happen to think they would. It can be shown that around the world in various religions, the guidelines for living "a good life" are generally agreed upon regardless of the diety involved.

As a sidenote, I would suggest that Bill Gates, despite his personal acquisition of wealth and power, has done a good for our countries economy and in developing more consistent "standards" for the PC industry even if one would argue that those "standards" may not have been the best. That aside, Bill Gates is an extremely effective business man. I'm not on the Bill Gates Defense League, but I think there is a bigger picture to what he has done than simply what the Justice Dept. has interests in.

I would also express my appreciation those who have provided their thoughtful commentary to this thread. I am enjoying it, even if my long-winded tendencies are occupying entirely too much of my (and your) time. I can never seem to summarize my thoughts in a few quick sentences. I guess it comes from trying to reduce the likelihood that others will make assumptions which I would later end up addressing anyway.

[Dick Reece]

Agreed with the Bill Gates thing, I was using him primarily as an example of someone being driven by greed [how many billions does one man need ? Why fight the courts with his wealth,especially if they are so obviously right?].I was pointing out that there are many people of all levels of society and all walks of life who do not base there life on other people's expectations OR there conscience,but merely on meeting there perceived goals [ now defined as values as well by you] in life.

As to the values, you are right.But I believe as we age,our changing morals give us a new set of values or a new type of value system.Criminals and others, on the flip side of the coin,base there morals or lack of them on whether they hinder or help them meet there value system [goals].I believe our morals give rise to our virtues as well.While we can have one without the other, they are usually not nearly as pronounced or effective in our day to day sociological interactions when by themselves.

Dick

[Freyland]

I bet Lewis will stay away fromthisd thread, for more than 12 hours

Jonathan

[Bugger Stein]

A question that has popped up on this thread seem to be the one "why are some people beeing assholes, sexist etc?", and further, what are moral values and where do they come from? .

Bare with me this is a long post , and it has relevance, I believe, not only for the current thread, but also in regards to questions that has to do with "war" (because war is oftten fought with moral implications in mind (i.e protection of rights, human values etc...) , and other parts of human behaviour.

Just wanted to get into this "moralthing", an conseptions of virtues etc... There are some that claim that morales are the same within all of us and it´s just a matter of looking deep into our selves and see the resemblence with other people "do to others what you wan´t others to do to you" (in moral phil Kantianism) a dogma that would make wars virtually unthinkable, violence, rudness sexism equally unthinkable. Then there are other´s who claim that some of us are better than others in spotting "moral rightness" in actions, masters of "moral perception", hence the best way to do things would be to listen to these "guru´s" who can the tell the rest of us unfortunate what to do in certain situations. Ok, so what does this has to do with anything?

Well, if you think that the "degeneration" of society comes from lacking sufficient role-models, then your probably in to the "moral perception" thing, and if you believe that where all in a way, equal with equal moral knowled´ge, value etc, wether, male, female, gay, straight, etc, then maybe you would consider label yourself Kantian (Ok so there´s a lot more sub-categories in this field and this is by no means a thorough review of them all).

So what does this has to do with war and wargaming? Well, for starters WW2 can at a rudimentary look be seen as a conflict between these two ways of claiming whatis right and wrong (no, I don´t mean to label moral-perceptioners as Nazis), but the risk is, if you take your "moral values" from authority there´s always a risk when you do what´s "right" because it´s right, and not because you identify with the subject of your actions and try to see it from their point of view by looking in to yourself.

Just keep this in mind when you talk of "moral role-models". So what do I think of all this?

I´m getting confused cause this is the most basic, simple and important question we can ask ourselves, but the answers are never that easy, flip the coins over again and again, and you see what I mean. The question is not whether people are born evil, made evil, misunderstood the social codex, cause some clearly have made "moral mistakes"(sexist, racist, homophobes, animal abusers etc). Just be careful when making assumptions about moral right & might and where it comes from.

Gees I don´t know why I posted this, maybe cause I just finished a paper on the subject and this discussion seemed to have something to do with it, maybe I was wrong ?

This stated, gender shouldn´t matter, we are all on this board because of a fascination for militaria and ww2 and we are all eager to learn and understand more about this fascinating subject, that´s what matters.

Oh, and we all love to see things blow up...

And hearing the scream "mein bein, mein bein"

[Bugger Stein]

A question that has popped up on this thread seem to be the one "why are some people beeing assholes, sexist etc?", and further, what are moral values and where do they come from? .

Bare with me this is a long post , and it has relevance, I believe, not only for the current thread, but also in regards to questions that has to do with "war" (because war is oftten fought with moral implications in mind (i.e protection of rights, human values etc...) , and other parts of human behaviour.

Just wanted to get into this "moralthing", an conseptions of virtues etc... There are some that claim that morales are the same within all of us and it´s just a matter of looking deep into our selves and see the resemblence with other people "do to others what you wan´t others to do to you" (in moral phil Kantianism) a dogma that would make wars virtually unthinkable, violence, rudness sexism equally unthinkable. Then there are other´s who claim that some of us are better than others in spotting "moral rightness" in actions, masters of "moral perception", hence the best way to do things would be to listen to these "guru´s" who can the tell the rest of us unfortunate what to do in certain situations. Ok, so what does this has to do with anything?

Well, if you think that the "degeneration" of society comes from lacking sufficient role-models, then your probably in to the "moral perception" thing, and if you believe that where all in a way, equal with equal moral knowled´ge, value etc, wether, male, female, gay, straight, etc, then maybe you would consider label yourself Kantian (Ok so there´s a lot more sub-categories in this field and this is by no means a thorough review of them all).

So what does this has to do with war and wargaming? Well, for starters WW2 can at a rudimentary look be seen as a conflict between these two ways of claiming whatis right and wrong (no, I don´t mean to label moral-perceptioners as Nazis), but the risk is, if you take your "moral values" from authority there´s always a risk when you do what´s "right" because it´s right, and not because you identify with the subject of your actions and try to see it from their point of view by looking in to yourself.

Just keep this in mind when you talk of "moral role-models". So what do I think of all this?

I´m getting confused cause this is the most basic, simple and important question we can ask ourselves, but the answers are never that easy, flip the coins over again and again, and you see what I mean. The question is not whether people are born evil, made evil, misunderstood the social codex, cause some clearly have made "moral mistakes"(sexist, racist, homophobes, animal abusers etc). Just be careful when making assumptions about moral right & might and where it comes from.

Gees I don´t know why I posted this, maybe cause I just finished a paper on the subject and this discussion seemed to have something to do with it, maybe I was wrong ?

This stated, gender shouldn´t matter, we are all on this board because of a fascination for militaria and ww2 and we are all eager to learn and understand more about this fascinating subject, that´s what matters.

Oh, and we all love to see things blow up...

And hearing the scream "mein bein, mein bein"

[Bugger Stein]

and as if my post wasn´t long and confused enough as it was, I posted two (whoops three in total).

I´m a shrewd little bugger!

So FutbolHead, and other moral philosophers, comment´s??

Not that I don´t like your posts, just got some ideas from it especially considering some common global basis for human moral values:

"It can be shown that around the world in various religions, the guidelines for living "a good life" are generally agreed upon regardless of the diety involved".

However, in some cultures people perform rituals that are considered morally digusting to others, furthermore what are considered moral values in one community may well be conflicting moral values in another.

So what of these values are we to give priority to??

Values that claim for example strict family roles (i.e male, female stereotypes). Mind you, a lot of people (and I am certainly not one of them and I guess you are not one of them either) claim that the "moral degeneration" showing in lacking of courtesy at best, robbery, Bill Gates, Talonsoft and even murder at worst (NO I don´t claim either Talonsoft or Bill Gates beeing that depraved, even if we could say they are lacking some kind of moral standard)has it´s root´s in people abandoning "traditional" sexual roles, i.e. females playing wargames, men wearing dresses etc...

Well I for one am damned glad to see the wargaming community expanding and I would hate seeing people acting like assholes, treating females different from males, making sexist remarks etc, stopping this trend. You go girls, and we go girls for in a sense we are all alike!!!

As a comment to some "biologist" statements about gender differences: I don´t think that "male biology" is a warmonger any more than "female biology", simply because there is no "male biology" different from "female biology" that in any relevant sense can be used as a base for argument.

Studies showing bigger variations within genders than between genders only proves the point.

A:"We are all individuals, we are all different"

B:"I´m not"

Monty Pythons:"Life of Brian" (can´t remember what scene)

[Fionn]

Well, personally, I think that everyone is born with an innate ability to be moral ( according to the definitions of that term within society and excepting certain congenital or acquired brain disorders).

Anyways, I think that society shapes us and determines what level of morals we have. The power of those elements in society to determine moral outlook is proportional to their distance from our inner family circle AND proportional to the amount of time of both direct and indirect interaction we have with those elements.

I don't believe that some people are born intrinsically more capable of discerning moral rights and wrongs but I do believe that over the course of time some people accept society's moralities more completely and easily than others.

Of course, not all societies actually have moral moral outlooks. At one stage slavery was quite accepted as being reasonable and moral justification was created for slavery and taught to youngsters.

So, we come to the interesting quandary whereby when we discuss morality we are discussing a culture-defined entity BUT the culture's definition of morality may not actually be very ethically or morally correct and the "rebels" who do not accept culture's morality may be seen, in coming years, to be more moral than society itself .

Of course, I should explain that I hold this view because I believe that one of the most harmful things any human can do is accept the morality of his/her culture without question. I believe we should all look at the moral rights and wrongs as put forth in our respective cultures and then decide which to accept and which to reject ( and hope we accept the right ones and reject the bad ones).

Just call me cynical when I see society making crimes and/or labelling as unacceptable behaviour so many things which are quite acceptable and welcome IMO.

[Dick Reece]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn:

Well, personally, I think that everyone is born with an innate ability to be moral ( according to the definitions of that term within society and excepting certain congenital or acquired brain disorders).

Anyways, I think that society shapes us and determines what level of morals we have. The power of those elements in society to determine moral outlook is proportional to their distance from our inner family circle AND proportional to the amount of time of both direct and indirect interaction we have with those elements.

I don't believe that some people are born intrinsically more capable of discerning moral rights and wrongs but I do believe that over the course of time some people accept society's moralities more completely and easily than others.

Of course, not all societies actually have moral moral outlooks. At one stage slavery was quite accepted as being reasonable and moral justification was created for slavery and taught to youngsters.

So, we come to the interesting quandary whereby when we discuss morality we are discussing a culture-defined entity BUT the culture's definition of morality may not actually be very ethically or morally correct and the "rebels" who do not accept culture's morality may be seen, in coming years, to be more moral than society itself .

Of course, I should explain that I hold this view because I believe that one of the most harmful things any human can do is accept the morality of his/her culture without question. I believe we should all look at the moral rights and wrongs as put forth in our respective cultures and then decide which to accept and which to reject ( and hope we accept the right ones and reject the bad ones).

Just call me cynical when I see society making crimes and/or labelling as unacceptable behaviour so many things which are quite acceptable and welcome IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which brings us full circle, back to Futbolheads statement that his conscience was his guide, and not anyone elses expectations of him.

Dick

[Bugger Stein]

Well, what a ride this thread has been, a real pleasure to read, however, the philosophical question still stands:"Is there a moral truth out there that we discover or is it just us who change the rules ever so often?". ANd as soon at the question is asked lets drop it and merely use it as a means to challenge our intellects when the rain pours down and the computers broken... Argument goes on and on, and yes, now we have reach the beginning once again.

Agreed Fionn that it´s dangerous to just take moral truths provided by society for granted for a great many resons, and probably the moral avantgarde of today, if we believe that moral progress is beeing made (probably feminism, enviromentalism, enhanced humanism etc) will be taken for granted moral truths tomorrow.

Intrinsically right or wrong I don´t know, but somehow I know what I like (feminism, enhanced humansim, environmentalism etc and playing CM!

Maybe we get the society we deserve?

[FutbolHead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bugger Stein:

[snip]

I´m getting confused cause this is the most basic, simple and important question we can ask ourselves, but the answers are never that easy, flip the coins over again and again, and you see what I mean. The question is not whether people are born evil, made evil, misunderstood the social codex, cause some clearly have made "moral mistakes"(sexist, racist, homophobes, animal abusers etc). Just be careful when making assumptions about moral right & might and where it comes from.

Gees I don´t know why I posted this, maybe cause I just finished a paper on the subject and this discussion seemed to have something to do with it, maybe I was wrong ?

[snip]

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that philosophy classes intentional cloud the issue. It's not the purpose (or perhaps should not be) of teaching you what philosophy to believe, it merely presents you with different philosophical models. This may be stating the obvious, but you indicated you were getting confused. It should be said that we as individuals have to "bite the bullet" and pick something to believe in, and as such take responsibility for the consequences should they arise. Obviously, you would think that most people would use education and experience to pick or taylor this system to that which they believe is the most "right" one. None the less, it requires that we make a decision and not just flounder.

As I stated before, my belief is that everyone has some inate ability to understand the "greater" ideas of right and wrong. By this I mean, those actions which are invasive or exercise dominion over another individual or group of people for personal gain or edification. Stealing, robbing, assaulting, murder, rape, i.e. the big ones. Some people are stronger in understanding these, some people are weaker.

(stick neck out on a limb mode)

Listen folks, there is no getting around the fact, as unpleasant or as politically incorrect as it is, some people are born weaker physically, mentally, morally, physiological, and pyschologically, and perhaps in any number of other ways, not necessarily in all those ways but perhaps any combination thereof. {The evidence of this walks around us on a daily basis. Observe life and people.} Nature says, those weaker ones should die off in order to strengthen the species. Humans, who believe the are more enlightened, say, we should help those weaker ones.

(neck retraction activated)

Back to my line of thinking. Those people who are weaker on the moral scale need people who are stronger on the moral scale. Some choose to seek that guidance (go to church, seek education, follow cults, etc.) and choose not to. Even the stronger types still may follow suit but perhaps more in leadership positions, i.e. priests, cult leaders, etc. Even those on the stronger scale may choose to abandon their sense of morality in favor of personal gain or edification.

As an example, John Wayne Gacy. Consider by many a great civic leader, a pillar of the community. He most likely had a very strong sense or understanding of right and wrong because he was able to pass himself off as a genuine caring person. He raped and murdered 33 young boys and buried them under his house.

The whole idea of holding people accountable for their actions is dependant upon choice (which requires understanding), action, and intent. Any philosophical model which lessens this concept dooms the people or society who elect to believe it.

With respect to who decides which moral code to go by, it is clearly societies role to do so. Any collective of people who decide to live together in relative harmony have to collectively decide on (by majority) those types of behavior which are morally and socially acceptable. There is no way around this. Naturally, the few who find themselves on the more "decadent" end and those who consider themselves great philosophical thinkers will disagree with this application. You can't base society on pleasing the fringe, it has to be the masses.

I personally don't believe in the concepts of Globalization. New World Order, all that stuff. Other collectives of people are going to come up with their own set of moral quidelines based on consensus of their majorities. I personally think we were meant to have different societies, different cultures, different beliefs and attitudes about life. Everyone in the world just won't fit on the same sheet of "moral" music. But I do think they basically all figure out the "greater" issues of morality that I explained before.

My apologies, I have been rushed in the last couple of paragraphs so I hope I stated my position well. As usual I am subject to challenge and questions which I will address when time permits.

[Freyland]

Hello, all.

This is Freyland's wife speaking under his Profile (for time's sake), adding to the discussion a bit. (My handle is BlackTigr for anyone who is keeping score.) I am learning CM somewhat, and enjoy it immensely (not very good yet).

I would argue that there are plenty of women who would like wargames, but just don't know it yet. (Jonathan and I met at a longstanding BattleTech game.)

If we were to increase the amount of feminine exposure to the game, the statistics on how many femmes play might change a bit, given the hypothesis that we women like to watch things blow up, too.

Just my two cents.

--Amy

P.S. Can I have my husband back soon? He's on vacation, and promised to spend some time with me this month...

[Fionn]

ooh, Battletech.

Please tell me you weren't a Jade Falcon clanner or something disgusting like House Steiner (damn goodie two-shoes).

Wolf's Dragoon (or alternately a follower of the Dragon depending on time period) here.

[Freyland]

This is Jonathan this time.

Back when she was playing more actively, we were mostly generic InnerSphere. However, as technology developed, my group of local gamers created various 'meta-games' if you will, and I was a House Steiner goodie-twoshoe. I liked the Fist, and their high-production. I know their leadership was terrible, but the right guy (me) could turn them around!

Have not played in ~2years, however.

Jonathan

[patboivin]

I just want to add that for me, evil people are those who believe life owes them something.

[Freyland]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patboivin:

I just want to add that for me, evil people are those who believe life owes them something.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

= Flint, Michigan

Jonathan

[This message has been edited by Freyland (edited 08-06-2000).]

[Fionn]

Jonathan,

BAH, the only thing good about House Steiner was all the assasinations they used to carry out on eachother .

[:USERNAME:]

I havent been following this one so decided to jump to the last page and catch some of the flames...

I thought you would all be fighting over some womans attention on the board but are talking about battletech or dunjins and draggins?

Ponderous

Lewis

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is Freyland's wife speaking under his Profile (for time's sake), adding to the discussion a bit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm....Nathan vs Amy. That should be interesting

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(My handle is BlackTigr for anyone who is keeping score.) I am learning CM somewhat, and enjoy it immensely not very good yet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, That's because John is teaching you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>P.S. Can I have my husband back soon? He's on vacation, and promised to spend some time with me this month...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No...There's always next year

------------------

The dead know only one thing - it is better to be alive