Piterius
Auto-translated
With all due respect (and this is not just a formality).
I am surprised by something else, Petya, that instead of looking at the essence and trying to understand what I am trying to say, you are nitpicking at common phrases that are intended to complement the meaning of the post, but do not form its basis.
I will explain, if you really don't understand this figure of speech. I will explain, it is quite common.
Generally accepted moral values are what a certain group of people has agreed to consider moral values accepted in this group. These values have developed throughout human history and continue to change to this day.
However, different groups – peoples, religions, ages, professions – have different moral values. They are not just different, but sometimes directly contradict each other.
Examples for clarity:
- walking around without clothes is immoral. However, a 20-year-old girl with a bare midriff, bra straps peeking out from under her top, and in a miniskirt will cause extreme indignation and misunderstanding in some old woman in a shapeless dress and headscarf, and vice versa. This applies to one region; if we take this example in the context of countries, then in Africa/Australia, it is quite popular (in the least developed countries and remote settlements) to walk topless, regardless of gender. There are countless examples of this kind of appearance.
- the same picture is in sports: someone kicked the ball out when they saw that the opponent was lying on the grass, someone thought that he was clearly faking it or did not want to spoil a promising attack and continued to play, rightly believing that there is a referee on the field and if he did not stop the game, it means that you can play.
Similar examples can be given from all spheres of life, but I think the essence has become clearer. This is what I was trying to convey above.
- my post was due to the incomprehensible decisions of the AC (Arbitration Committee) – it did not provide any arguments or explanations (at least in the thread) for its decision.
- the misunderstanding is caused by the following things: there are simple facts that the AC should have taken into account:
a) Nitro and Redwhite knew about the admiral's hat. They were on equal terms! I am most interested in whether the AC took this into account? And why is everyone ignoring it, those who support the AC's decision to replay or even award Red a loss?
b) There have already been precedents of this kind of abuse, and they have been discussed on the forum. The AC does not live in the wilderness, and I think they saw the thread, if not all members of the AC, then at least most of them.
c) I don't know about you, but I personally haven't noticed any sadomasochistic tendencies in Nitro or a desire to live through self-flagellation, etc.
He weighed all the pros and cons and wrote that he recognizes the defeat. And I suspect it was not easy to do, after all, it was not a friendly game, but a game for a place in the group of a serious tournament, and the AC kindly brought a replay on a silver platter. It is up to the participant in this game to judge the fairness/unfairness of the AC's decision, and he has made his choice.
Nevertheless, you somehow decide that I and my generation are bookworms. I may be wrong, but we are the same generation as you :). And I have never smoked books and do not plan to in the foreseeable future ;)
Again, I am not touching on the moral aspect of the issue; I did not even express my opinion on what I think about it in terms of morality, because it does not affect the essence and, accordingly, I did not say anywhere that morality is crap :confused: Morality is everything! :smile13:
I'm not nitpicking; I'm trying to understand. But the more I read, the more I read subjectivism, presented as facts.
For example, you decided that Nitro admitted that he lost, but it turned out to be your guess.
I, for example, had no idea about this bug, or about its discussion, or about the fact that someone from the AC allowed it, and I am not in the AC because of a lack of knowledge of the rules and skill in the game. Believe me, there are no job responsibilities in the AC that imply continuous systematic monitoring of the correctness of the rules. The requirements are too high, the assumptions are not justified.
I like the numerous expert opinions that the rules were not formally violated, but again, these are just subjective opinions. They have watched too many American movies about courts and lawyers, and now everyone has become a successful lawyer, but has at least a tenth of them even looked at the civil code? Not every lawyer can explain the rule of law, the hierarchy of laws and regulations, the principles of operation of norms, the difference between notes, recommendations and clarifications, but all the protesting forum users definitely know that a note is not more important than the rules and have accurately determined which of the rules has the highest force. Well, never mind, it's not important anymore. You think so, think so.
I have been interested in another question for a long time. "Morality is everything," but what should we do with it if it is only on TV (and even now, very rarely), and the younger generation, I think, does not really know it. The conclusion is obvious: if the older generation puts morality first, then priorities have shifted significantly now. The current young generation does not see value in it; a young person cannot or does not want to figure out whether he is acting honestly or not, fairly or not, there is no internal core that subconsciously gives the command of how to act in certain cases. I would call it spiritual philistinism, a decline in the value set, or something like that. We need clear rules that must be strictly followed, so that you don't have any questions later, and you are ready to grind your teeth against the wall for these rules, no matter what. And that's more interesting! I encounter this more and more often, and there is a forecast that people of Generation Z (born after 2003) will not be able to take a step without a standard or rule and will want to put the law above everything. Well, we'll see.
Timur, your example about different interpretations of the same values in the context of different groups – nakedness is normal in some places, bad in others. Something tells me that in our group, no one will be against a 20-year-old girl with a bare midriff; I think she will only cause positive emotions ;)
I, on the other hand, emphasized your conclusion about different understandings of morality within one group. It's a little off-topic, but overall it doesn't matter; we can stop the dialogue. I basically understand your position.
Some are happy that they defended their interpretation of the law, while others feel better that the principles of honesty are respected.
And about smoking books – it's just a metaphor, and how it is perceived depends on individual subjectivism.
Хаос - это порядок, которым сложнее управлять.
icq: 407907277
skype: piterius_i
icq: 407907277
skype: piterius_i