Re: Active, Passive, and other sorts of stuff

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Main Board Page ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by The_Meehan on May 23, 2002 at 18:42:56:

In Reply to: Active, Passive, and other sorts of stuff posted by The Student on May 23, 2002 at 16:17:29:

: : Two points - the trite strawman first.
: Trite, indeed. I would have expected more from you, Meehan.

Hey, I calls them as I sees them - you raise a trite point, I raise a trite counterpoint. Whether or not the hunter takes countermeasures to ensure their survival has nothing to do with the classification. All hunters (well, not the suicidal ones) take preventive countermeasures. 'Sides, I never intended that to be a serious argument - why else would I call it a "strawman"?

: Let's take two examples, Jill Avenger and Joe Redeemer.

Right, and at the end of the list you've give (the supposed end of their responses) what change, physical, mental, or psychological, in the Monster has Joe (vice Jill) acheived?

In the list you've supplied, absolutely none. But I'll be generous, and allow the implied follow on - "Joe meets with Vampire, and it trusts him enough to meet with him repeatedly, with Joe playing the psychologist/deprogrammer/confessor to the Monster."

Let's assume Joe is successful. How has the Monster changed?
Physically, the Monster probably hasn't changed significantly. Mentally, the Monster is probably just as bright (or dumb) as it ever was, so again no change. Psychologically (and I place changes to thought patterns here as well), the Monster has definitely changed. It is now redeemed. However, that change is ultimately because of ITS actions, not Joes'. Now, Joe is certainly a catalyst, perhaps even a vital and indispensible one. But it's not Joe who initiates the changes in the Monster, but the Monster itself.

Let's assume Jill is successful. How has the Monster changed? Well, it's dead now, which is a change in all *three* areas. Barring supernatural intervention (a la Zombies and Ghosts) a dead creature has no psychology or mental processes at all, and it certainly had them while alive. The physical changes are obvious. Moreover, it was Jill who initated the changes - indeed the Monster probably *actively* resisted.

So, all of Joe's (admittedly lengthy) list of actions eventually (if he's successful) lead to the Monster changing itself. While Jill's list of actions eventually (if successful) lead to Jill changing the Monster.

And THAT is why I call Redeemers Passive and Avengers Active.

As I have said REPEATEDLY, it has NOTHING to do with the difficulties, dangers, et al.

And note that we've been focusing on Redeemers, who in my scale are actually rated Neutral. The Innocent's job is to ACCEPT the Monsters' natures, to understand them. And that is DEFINITELY passive.

: So, essentially, you're playing Aristotle. Define your terms so that you're right.

While I've certainly been known to do this in the past, I'm not doing so here. But in any debate, to reach a productive conclusion about a hypothesis, you have to accept common definitions and axioms. If you can't do that (and I've been in plenty of arguments where that was the case) you might as well retreat from the pointless discussion. Honestly, most long, drawn out arguments I've ever participated in (or seen, or heard) have lasted that long because the participants DIDN'T have a base in common and neither realized it.

: : Now you may wish to argue over the connotations and denotations I apply, as Michele did in the case of "Reckoning", but I feel I've at least been reasonably clear about which connotations I do not apply.

: I feel that's what I did here.

Here, yes. At least to some degree. But even here, your example persisted in using as a counter-argument something I had repeatedly denied was germane to my classification. And I believe (though I'd have to check to be sure) that my first response indicated that I was classifying the Creeds according to their nature/purpose.

To forestall any possible futher misunderstanding about my stance on Redeemers, let me clearly state one of my underlying axioms :
"The only person someone can (mentally, psychologically) change is themselves."

If you disagree with that axiom, there's no point in continuing this debate about Redeemers, as we don't share a common base to argue from.

BTW, here's a more complete Creed chart for you to froth over. ;)

And, if I was to place them in a single continuum, from Passive to Agressive :
Innocent
Hermit
Defender
Redeemer
Visionary
Judge
Martyr
Wayward
Avenger

And if you reverse it, you have my opinion on how the respective creeds' career lengths stack up (i.e. Innocents have the longest lasting careers as Imbued, and Avengers the shortest).

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : : Two points - the trite strawman first. : : Trite, indeed. I would have expected more from you, Meehan. : Hey, I calls them as I sees them - you raise a trite point, I raise a trite counterpoint. Whether or not the hunter takes countermeasures to ensure their survival has nothing to do with the classification. All hunters (well, not the suicidal ones) take preventive countermeasures. 'Sides, I never intended that to be a serious argument - why else would I call it a "strawman"? : : Let's take two examples, Jill Avenger and Joe Redeemer. : Right, and at the end of the list you've give (the supposed end of their responses) what change, physical, mental, or psychological, in the Monster has Joe (vice Jill) acheived? : In the list you've supplied, absolutely none. But I'll be generous, and allow the implied follow on - "Joe meets with Vampire, and it trusts him enough to meet with him repeatedly, with Joe playing the psychologist/deprogrammer/confessor to the Monster." : Let's assume Joe is successful. How has the Monster changed? : Physically, the Monster probably hasn't changed significantly. Mentally, the Monster is probably just as bright (or dumb) as it ever was, so again no change. Psychologically (and I place changes to thought patterns here as well), the Monster has definitely changed. It is now redeemed. However, that change is ultimately because of ITS actions, not Joes'. Now, Joe is certainly a catalyst, perhaps even a vital and indispensible one. But it's not Joe who initiates the changes in the Monster, but the Monster itself. : Let's assume Jill is successful. How has the Monster changed? Well, it's dead now, which is a change in all *three* areas. Barring supernatural intervention (a la Zombies and Ghosts) a dead creature has no psychology or mental processes at all, and it certainly had them while alive. The physical changes are obvious. Moreover, it was Jill who initated the changes - indeed the Monster probably *actively* resisted. : So, all of Joe's (admittedly lengthy) list of actions eventually (if he's successful) lead to the Monster changing itself. While Jill's list of actions eventually (if successful) lead to Jill changing the Monster. : And THAT is why I call Redeemers Passive and Avengers Active. : As I have said REPEATEDLY, it has NOTHING to do with the difficulties, dangers, et al. : And note that we've been focusing on Redeemers, who in my scale are actually rated Neutral. The Innocent's job is to ACCEPT the Monsters' natures, to understand them. And that is DEFINITELY passive. : : So, essentially, you're playing Aristotle. Define your terms so that you're right. : While I've certainly been known to do this in the past, I'm not doing so here. But in any debate, to reach a productive conclusion about a hypothesis, you have to accept common definitions and axioms. If you can't do that (and I've been in plenty of arguments where that was the case) you might as well retreat from the pointless discussion. Honestly, most long, drawn out arguments I've ever participated in (or seen, or heard) have lasted that long because the participants DIDN'T have a base in common and neither realized it. : : : Now you may wish to argue over the connotations and denotations I apply, as Michele did in the case of "Reckoning", but I feel I've at least been reasonably clear about which connotations I do not apply. : : I feel that's what I did here. : Here, yes. At least to some degree. But even here, your example persisted in using as a counter-argument something I had repeatedly denied was germane to my classification. And I believe (though I'd have to check to be sure) that my first response indicated that I was classifying the Creeds according to their nature/purpose. : To forestall any possible futher misunderstanding about my stance on Redeemers, let me clearly state one of my underlying axioms : : "The only person someone can (mentally, psychologically) change is themselves." : If you disagree with that axiom, there's no point in continuing this debate about Redeemers, as we don't share a common base to argue from. : BTW, here's a more complete Creed chart for you to froth over. ;) : ................|.Mercy...|.Vision...|.Zeal : ................|(Passive)|(Neutral).|(Active) : Mercy.(Passive).|.Innocent|.Hermit...|.Defender : Vision.(Neutral)|.Redeemer|.Visionary|.Judge : Zeal.(Active)...|.Martyr..|.Wayward..|.Avenger : And, if I was to place them in a single continuum, from Passive to Agressive : : Innocent : Hermit : Defender : Redeemer : Visionary : Judge : Martyr : Wayward : Avenger : And if you reverse it, you have my opinion on how the respective creeds' career lengths stack up (i.e. Innocents have the longest lasting careers as Imbued, and Avengers the shortest).

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Main Board Page ] [ FAQ ]