So, you're comparing the religious right to Stalin and Mao's actions??
if you're referring to my last line, I'm not referring to religious rights, I'm speaking of the Church as an organization, they preach tolerance, charity and all that on one side and they go against other people's right on the other (gays, abortion, other religious beliefs,...)
what I wanted to show with the christian's example is that when an organization is in a dominant position, what it does is "right" and "good"
I hope no one now sees it as "right" and "good"
germany was in that situation during WWII as were former Allies during the Cold War
now it's the turn of the US to say they're fighting for justice, freedom, democracy,...
In this case, yes. Jack is objectively doing bad, though subjectively, he thinks he's doing good. I don't see what's so difficult about this concept.
the thing is that these things happen and people don't stop and ask or try to understand the other side before taking action (and the "there wasn't time" excuse is not always true...)
it's like when a terrorist suicide attack happen or someone goes into a school and start shooting everyone: people don't really care why, yes, they try to justify it saying it was an attack against our culture or that the guy of the shooting played some violent game or heard some metal groups
but this doesn't mean anything
Where are you getting this?
is there any universal "good" or "bad"?
Oh, do tell me about the great Christian genocide that has apparently been going on at the behest of the U.S. government and other Western nations...
christians had their share a bit earlier (when they had more power) with crusades, witchhunts
now part of them act with words of intolerance against certain ideas and behaviors and many still don't even tolerate other beliefs
and they still manipulate people
note: religion and Church are two completely different things like it is for any other form of government, from other religions to countries that declare themselves communist, socialist, democratic,...
Eastern culture seen as evil? Since when do we see the eastern culture as evil? It isn't because bush cant shut up telling how bad iraq was before he, nobal as he is, attacked it that we see the eastern cultures as evil.
sry my bad... was meant to be western, better to fix it
@StormBlind: you cited a few people but there are entire groups of people committing also these things that are probably closer
like christians, american government followed by western europe (now and during the cold war) are probably the closest to us that I can think of
but history is written with these people...
is it?
how hitler is seen mostly depends on the fact that he lost the war
japanese, russian, chinese, americans, french, english, dutch people at some point have been seen as sick monsters with twisted minds
some facts are only seen after the decline of the nation, population, organization that did it
hitler's extermination camps were "ignored" at first when germany was still dominating europe
monsters to blame are found after the war when the "evilness" of who lost has to be shown (even if sometimes equal or worse atrocities have been committed from the winning side)
this has probably to do with our need to justify something as necessary, to show that we are the "good" people
now is probably the turn of the western culture in general guided by the US to be the one that will be seen as "evil" in the future
now for the flip side say your walking home and notice a women being raped so you pull your hand gun and shoot the man involved in raping said women in this case i would say that what you did is totally justified and even right
is it really right? isn't that man acting like this because he suffers from some mental sickness? or more probably he's a product of our society
maybe he rapes people because he's been raped many times before and he doesn't think it's bad to do it
who has to be punished? him or the society that made him think that he wasn't doing something bad?
is death really a right punishment?
So if, as is the case in your scenario, Jack is acting under mistaken beliefs, then he's just wrong - factually and morally - and the bomber is right. There's no irresolvable conflict here, any more than there is when one person thinks the world is flat and another that is is round.
doesn't "right" mean "good" and "wrong" mean "evil" since people act according to their beliefs and thus try do "good"?
the fact that "good" or "bad" are always subjective suggests that we have no right of judging people actions and that we can't punish them, not even an assassin because he might be on the "good" side
this line of thought works obviously if we don't believe our ideal is the path to follow without doubt
So what would God say, since he has all information at his disposal?
assume such an all-knowing (in both space and time sense) entity exists: then his/her conception of "good" and "evil" would be probably radically different if there is really any...
if such an entity really exists and its all-powerful then it means that we're living in the "best" possible world since he/she acts in such a way that the universe is as close as possible to his/her concept of "good" (assuming every entity with a concept of "good" and "evil" acts on the "good" side)
We can easily stipulate that the people in the building are innocent. If you're changing the scenario, then you're changing the action that we're supposed to be evaluating; you're not showing that the same action is both good and bad. If I ask, "Is it good to shoot Hitler?", and you respond with "What if it's really Gandhi in disguise as Hitler for some reason?", it is perfectly possible that the answer to the first question is simply "Yes" and to the second, "No", because they are different questions. If, in fact, it is not Gandhi disguised as Hitler, or if, in fact, the building is not full of assassins, then it's beside the point to ask what the case would be if it were.
ok, what I intended with the example is that only the terrorist knows that the place is full of terrorist and Jack Bauer think there are only innocent people
from his point of view he's doing a "good" thing because he doesn't know the place is full of future terrorists (or maybe he knows and he's defending them because they're going to kill people he think are "evil")
is there something that can be universally considered "good" or "evil"?
what do you guys intend as "good" and "evil"?
as some already mentioned, the definitions of these 2 concept are defined by the society and also by the people committing the act
there are so many examples in history where people saw something as "good" and now are seen as "evil" because it's a fact from the past or because we are on the other side of the action beeing committed
I think everything can be shown to be both "good" and "evil", it's just a matter of the information you have at disposal, how your culture perceive the fact,...
continuing the examples above:
Jack Bauer is standing on a skyscraper, pointing a gun at a terrorist with a bomb switch in his hand, which is wired to explosives that will destroy that skyscraper. The only way to stop him, and save hundreds or even thousands of lives, is to shoot him. Is it justified?
what if the "terrorist" knew that the skyscraper is full of a training facility for assassins that would go around the world and kill more people? we can go on forever this way...
the discussion about Hitler on the other side can be brought in the direction of the conception of a "good" society (productive, dominant over others, rich, peaceful, elitarian or beautiful or something else?)
a society where all its members come from the same culture and there is no weak member may be more efficient, grow faster,... and for some that may be the ideal society, the "good" one
on the other side that same society would probably lose that component that nature gave us, the difference that helps a species adapt to new situations but this may be seen as "evil" because these same differences produce violence, misunderstanding,...
another idea that may be interesting to consider: suppose the society shown in minority report is true: how would you consider a man that kills a kid because in 20 years that same boy would kill 1000 people
what is the "right" action to take?
even assuming a common conception of "good" and "evil":
a man 'A' is killing man 'B' that is trying to kill 10 people
you know that the 'B' is taking this action as a consequence of something that 'A' (or his "society") has done to him 2 years before (maybe he killed his entire family)
who's evil there? 'A' because he started it all? 'B' because he's trying to kill more people? both because they are both killing? none of them because they are both justified? something else?
I tried another mill deck but with white instead of green
it's slower but has better helpers against aggro (I think): *** and Magus of the Tabernacle other than ajani, beacon of immortality and rule of law
since it doesn't have so much acceleration the main mill cards are jace and howling mine
it also had solid games against aggro...
maybe when I have some time I'll come back and try your version...
I'm sorry I couldn't be there to for the latest stuff... so... what's the situation now? Lord_of_Atlantis's patch is the latest and most updated? can I put that link in the 1st post?
the problem that comes out when generating a sealed deck is caused by the wrong edition key probably
I found that out with someone else having the problem
you guys probably wrote "lor" instead of "LOR"
1. save Lorwyn.txt on your computer
2. open mws
3. select mwBase
4. tools -> analyze/add/remove sets...
5. edition name: Lorwyn edition key: LOR (note: it's important that you write it with capital letters, otherwise you can't generate sealed decks)
6. select "get data from text spoiler" and set path to Lorwyn.txt
7. next page
8. add edition
9. save mwBase
10. exit mws
11. reopen mws
12. enjoy
if you're referring to my last line, I'm not referring to religious rights, I'm speaking of the Church as an organization, they preach tolerance, charity and all that on one side and they go against other people's right on the other (gays, abortion, other religious beliefs,...)
what I wanted to show with the christian's example is that when an organization is in a dominant position, what it does is "right" and "good"
I hope no one now sees it as "right" and "good"
germany was in that situation during WWII as were former Allies during the Cold War
now it's the turn of the US to say they're fighting for justice, freedom, democracy,...
it's like when a terrorist suicide attack happen or someone goes into a school and start shooting everyone: people don't really care why, yes, they try to justify it saying it was an attack against our culture or that the guy of the shooting played some violent game or heard some metal groups
but this doesn't mean anything
is there any universal "good" or "bad"?
christians had their share a bit earlier (when they had more power) with crusades, witchhunts
now part of them act with words of intolerance against certain ideas and behaviors and many still don't even tolerate other beliefs
and they still manipulate people
note: religion and Church are two completely different things like it is for any other form of government, from other religions to countries that declare themselves communist, socialist, democratic,...
@StormBlind: you cited a few people but there are entire groups of people committing also these things that are probably closer
like christians, american government followed by western europe (now and during the cold war) are probably the closest to us that I can think of
but history is written with these people...
how hitler is seen mostly depends on the fact that he lost the war
japanese, russian, chinese, americans, french, english, dutch people at some point have been seen as sick monsters with twisted minds
some facts are only seen after the decline of the nation, population, organization that did it
hitler's extermination camps were "ignored" at first when germany was still dominating europe
monsters to blame are found after the war when the "evilness" of who lost has to be shown (even if sometimes equal or worse atrocities have been committed from the winning side)
this has probably to do with our need to justify something as necessary, to show that we are the "good" people
now is probably the turn of the western culture in general guided by the US to be the one that will be seen as "evil" in the future
maybe he rapes people because he's been raped many times before and he doesn't think it's bad to do it
who has to be punished? him or the society that made him think that he wasn't doing something bad?
is death really a right punishment?
doesn't "right" mean "good" and "wrong" mean "evil" since people act according to their beliefs and thus try do "good"?
the fact that "good" or "bad" are always subjective suggests that we have no right of judging people actions and that we can't punish them, not even an assassin because he might be on the "good" side
this line of thought works obviously if we don't believe our ideal is the path to follow without doubt
if such an entity really exists and its all-powerful then it means that we're living in the "best" possible world since he/she acts in such a way that the universe is as close as possible to his/her concept of "good" (assuming every entity with a concept of "good" and "evil" acts on the "good" side)
ok, what I intended with the example is that only the terrorist knows that the place is full of terrorist and Jack Bauer think there are only innocent people
from his point of view he's doing a "good" thing because he doesn't know the place is full of future terrorists (or maybe he knows and he's defending them because they're going to kill people he think are "evil")
is there something that can be universally considered "good" or "evil"?
as some already mentioned, the definitions of these 2 concept are defined by the society and also by the people committing the act
there are so many examples in history where people saw something as "good" and now are seen as "evil" because it's a fact from the past or because we are on the other side of the action beeing committed
I think everything can be shown to be both "good" and "evil", it's just a matter of the information you have at disposal, how your culture perceive the fact,...
continuing the examples above:
what if the "terrorist" knew that the skyscraper is full of a training facility for assassins that would go around the world and kill more people? we can go on forever this way...
the discussion about Hitler on the other side can be brought in the direction of the conception of a "good" society (productive, dominant over others, rich, peaceful, elitarian or beautiful or something else?)
a society where all its members come from the same culture and there is no weak member may be more efficient, grow faster,... and for some that may be the ideal society, the "good" one
on the other side that same society would probably lose that component that nature gave us, the difference that helps a species adapt to new situations but this may be seen as "evil" because these same differences produce violence, misunderstanding,...
another idea that may be interesting to consider: suppose the society shown in minority report is true: how would you consider a man that kills a kid because in 20 years that same boy would kill 1000 people
what is the "right" action to take?
even assuming a common conception of "good" and "evil":
a man 'A' is killing man 'B' that is trying to kill 10 people
you know that the 'B' is taking this action as a consequence of something that 'A' (or his "society") has done to him 2 years before (maybe he killed his entire family)
who's evil there? 'A' because he started it all? 'B' because he's trying to kill more people? both because they are both killing? none of them because they are both justified? something else?
it's slower but has better helpers against aggro (I think): *** and Magus of the Tabernacle other than ajani, beacon of immortality and rule of law
since it doesn't have so much acceleration the main mill cards are jace and howling mine
it also had solid games against aggro...
maybe when I have some time I'll come back and try your version...
I found that out with someone else having the problem
you guys probably wrote "lor" instead of "LOR"
just select a card in the master grid
1. save Lorwyn.txt on your computer
2. open mws
3. select mwBase
4. tools -> analyze/add/remove sets...
5. edition name: Lorwyn edition key: LOR (note: it's important that you write it with capital letters, otherwise you can't generate sealed decks)
6. select "get data from text spoiler" and set path to Lorwyn.txt
7. next page
8. add edition
9. save mwBase
10. exit mws
11. reopen mws
12. enjoy
we have 1 uncommon that should be common