View Full Version : Virtue
Toward understanding virtue...
What sort of characteristics do you consider virtuous? Why? What are the corresponding vices of these virtues?
I'll start:
Truth. What is truth?--'unconcealment.' Truth is the search for knowledge and the confrontation with those things one might find difficult.
Honesty might be a better term for this virtue, but honesty designates something different: truth-become-absolute. Honesty often conflicts with other virtues, and furthermore is only virtuous because of its relation to truth.
The lie is the corresponding vice of truth. Lying conceals reality, usually for the sake of one's own comfort. When it comes to others, lying may not be a vice, however: some people are not virtuous themselves and may not be able to handle difficult truths, or may cause harm with a given truth. Therefore, when it comes to others, truth is a virtue only when rationality dictates that it will do good; but when it comes to oneself, one should strive for all the truth one can handle.
Kodos
02-18-2006, 05:43 PM
Hard work, kindness when possible ruthlessness when nessecary, honor and honesty...
All a society needs.
Péter
02-20-2006, 03:36 AM
Virtue is the highest dharma, or, dharma is the highest virtue. In other words: the highest virtue is dispassionate, dutiful action in the name of truth.
Compared to the highest virtue, all else are vices.
Why 'dispassionate'?
Arguably, one should not pursue truth in the name of passion, as that would not be to pursue truth for truth's own sake. But the counter-argument is that all actions, insofar as they are genuine, are motivated by passion of some sort: one could not pursue truth if one were truly dispassionate. Passion will have to be defined and, it seems, types of passion will have to be differentiated. One type seems necessary; another counter-productive.
Péter
02-20-2006, 03:56 AM
Why 'dispassionate'?
Arguably, one should not pursue truth in the name of passion, as that would not be to pursue truth for truth's own sake. But the counter-argument is that all actions, insofar as they are genuine, are motivated by passion of some sort: one could not pursue truth if one were truly dispassionate. Passion will have to be defined and, it seems, types of passion will have to be differentiated. One type seems necessary; another counter-productive.
By "dispassionate," I simply meant action done for duty's sake without regard for the consequences of that action. To understand this one will of course have to presuppose that although there exists an essential nature to truth, its forms are not absolute. Resultantly, duty varies with regard to context: it may be different based on the individual and circumstances considered, so long as it remains duty for the sake of truth.
action done for duty's sake without regard for the consequences of that action
It just struck me: this necessitates a complete and utter abandonment of the individual will, the selfish 'I.' Duties are, of course, not always given to one by a superior. In India, duty was dharma, relating to caste--thus it was one's duty to be whom one was born to be, so to speak; selfless duty to self--authenticity.
Now, to relate this to truth...
If we continue to define truth as 'unconcealment,' which is essentially the same thing as 'revelation' or 'unfolding,' then it could be said that in fulfilling one's duty, one is being 'true to oneself.' That is to say, through duty, a being unfolds being; duty is the action which reveals the truth of oneself to oneself.
Understood in the above context, self-fulfillment is the highest virtue.
...now, how to apply this in every-day, mundane life...
Péter
02-20-2006, 04:19 AM
It just struck me: this necessitates a complete and utter abandonment of the individual will, the selfish 'I.' Duties are, of course, not always given to one by a superior. In India, duty was dharma, relating to caste--thus it was one's duty to be whom one was born to be, so to speak; selfless duty to self--authenticity.
Now, to relate this to truth...
If we continue to define truth as 'unconcealment,' which is essentially the same thing as 'revelation' or 'unfolding,' then it could be said that in fulfilling one's duty, one is being 'true to oneself.' That is to say, through duty, a being unfolds being; duty is the action which reveals the truth of oneself to oneself.
Understood in the above context, self-fulfillment is the highest virtue.
Now, perhaps, it will make sense to say that self-fulfillment is the abandonment of the self--that is to say, the negation of the individual self reveals the greater, transcendent Self. Through such an unfolding, the Self is realized. What becomes clear is that duty has a concealed soteriological character, to one which can uncover it. Such was taught by the most noble of every faith. Few listened, even fewer heard.
Péter
02-20-2006, 04:30 AM
...now, how to apply this in every-day, mundane life...
Did you not just agree with me today that nirvana is verily contained within samsara, that heaven is had in struggle, that there is no end? How can life ever be mundane again when it holds transcendence?
Few listened, even fewer heard.
Very clever inversion. Most say, "You heard my words, but you did not listen." But having listened, having understood rationally, it is still necessary to hear, to sense and experience, the words. Only then do words move beyond the domain of words, which are fundamentally used to conceal the truth--which are fundamentally used to lie--only then do words become Truth, Logos, the Word, etc.
Now, perhaps, it will make sense to say that self-fulfillment is the abandonment of the self--that is to say, the negation of the individual self reveals the greater, transcendent Self. Through such an unfolding, the Self is realized. What becomes clear is that duty has a concealed soteriological character, to one which can uncover it.
While waiting for your response, I was, too, thinking about the connection between this and salvation understood more legitimately (rather than merely the absolution of sin in a theology of moral guilt).
What we are speaking of here is essentially the Christian virtue of agape, perfect, selfless love for others.
Interesting to discover that it's not meaningless. :p
Péter
02-20-2006, 04:43 AM
Very clever inversion. Most say, "You heard my words, but you did not listen." But having listened, having understood rationally, it is still necessary to hear, to sense and experience, the words. Only then do words move beyond the domain of words, which are fundamentally used to conceal the truth--which are fundamentally used to lie--only then do words become Truth, Logos, the Word, etc.
It is interesting to note that a literal translation of "Isten igéje," the Hungarian rendition of the "Word of God," is "God's verb!"
While waiting for your response, I was, too, thinking about the connection between this and salvation understood more legitimately (rather than merely the absolution of sin in a theology of moral guilt).
What we are speaking of here is essentially the Christian virtue of agape, perfect, selfless love for others.
Interesting to discover that it's not meaningless. :p
Thus, faith becomes an active verb.
Did you not just agree with me today that nirvana is verily contained within samsara, that heaven is had in struggle, that there is no end? How can life ever be mundane again when it holds transcendence?
I agree, of course, but have yet to accumulate the necessary quota of epiphanies to experience this. ;) I can only rationally understand it.
But what I am mostly asking is: how does one unfold oneself in life while striving toward this realization? That is, for one who does not yet know oneself, what is one's duty?
In earlier eras, one would join a brotherhood, seek a teacher, or some such, and one would discover a tradition therefrom--and one would, while striving to find one's true duty, be in the meanwhile dutiful to a superior. We lack this. So how should the unenlightened go about living while seeking his enlightenment? There will be aimlessness up to the point of realization, I know--and probably even following this realization!--but the aimless can be given a general direction.
Speaking of realization: is it possible that enlightenment comes only in momentary flashes, to be lost again by the individual? Perhaps what 'salvation' is the deliverance from long moments of ignorance; perhaps enlightenment is simply an ever-increasing prolongation of moments of awareness.
Thus, faith becomes an active verb.
Makes perfect sense in light of my above post. Faith is a striving toward Truth, just as "duty is the action which reveals the truth of oneself to oneself."
Péter
02-20-2006, 05:00 AM
But what I am mostly asking is: how does one unfold oneself in life while striving toward this realization? That is, for one who does not yet know oneself, what is one's duty?
In earlier eras, one would join a brotherhood, seek a teacher, or some such, and one would discover a tradition therefrom--and one would, while striving to find one's true duty, be in the meanwhile dutiful to a superior. We lack this. So how should the unenlightened go about living while seeking his enlightenment? There will be aimlessness up to the point of realization, I know--and probably even following this realization!--but the aimless can be given a general direction.
The foremost duty: know thy self.
"He that seeks life shall lose it." Do not seek, but live.
Speaking of realization: is it possible that enlightenment comes only in momentary flashes, to be lost again by the individual? Perhaps what 'salvation' is the deliverance from long moments of ignorance; perhaps enlightenment is simply an ever-increasing prolongation of moments of awareness.
Silly, you're trying to quantify the intangible. :p
The foremost duty: know thy self.
"He that seeks life shall lose it." Do not seek, but live.
Now we come to the point where all I find myself reading seem to me nothing more than platitudes--statements from which I can extract no meaning. ...Meaning it's time for me to get some rest and postpone my quest for the Absolute until tomorrow at the very earliest.
Anarch
02-21-2006, 04:28 AM
Honesty - Distortion
Integrity - Gutlessness
Pride - Masochism
Courage - Cowardice
Dedication - Indecisiveness
Magnanimity - Tight-fistedness
Productiveness - Parasitism
Why? Happiness. Joy is not happiness.
Ask what is noble jcs, not what is virtuous. We don't want you getting religion all over again. :nono:
Ask what is noble jcs, not what is virtuous. We don't want you getting religion all over again.
Virtue: from the Latin root-word 'vir,' the root also for the English 'virility.' Virtue and virility should not be separate concepts.
And your anti-religion fanaticism is quite obnoxious, zealot. You criticize without understanding: if you were to pay attention, you would find that most, if not all, of the virtues listed are 'noble' qualities as well--in fact, it is virtue that makes a man noble.
Sinclair
02-21-2006, 04:11 PM
A checklist:
-Honest, but careful. Don't be an ass, don't tell secrets, etc.
-Kind, but only as a default. Be kind to those who are kind to you, and be kind to those who you don't know about yet, but there is no need to be kind to those who are set on harming you. Kindness has degrees: You can simply be polite to most people, you don't have to let everybody walk all over you.
-Proud, but not arrogant. Know you're good at something, don't boast about it constantly. Don't be obsessed with your own successes
-Humble, without being the sort of person who constantly denigrates themself, for whatever reason. Don't be obsessed with your own failures.
-Honourable. Do your best to agree to things you have promised to do, do your best to fulfill whatever duty is given to you, etc. Don't agree to do things that you absolutely know you can't do, but instead try to figure out if there is a way you can enable yourself to do them. I think this can include qualities such as bravery and dedication.
Why? Happiness.
Doesn't the existence of an end render virtues means, thereby reducing them to a state of conditional validity? "If you want to be happy, be honest."
The highest virtue, toward which all other virtues point, is to constantly work to destroy one's ego, such that one moves toward being one's Self. As I mentioned yesterday, this basically means completely subordinating one's needs and desires at present to the ideal toward which one strives. Under the right conditions, this leads to happiness. Under bad conditions, virtue can lead to one's own suffering and death, at best giving one some sense of comfort (but probably--hopefully--not).
My main point is that virtues should not be upheld for the sake of some reward, but simply because we value such-and-such. Virtue might aim toward Heaven, but it is tested by the fires of Hell; suffer, and know your worth.
Die: Ask what is noble jcs, not what is virtuous. We don't want you getting religion all over again.
jcs: Virtue: from the Latin root-word 'vir,' the root also for the English 'virility.' Virtue and virility should not be separate concepts.
And your anti-religion fanaticism is quite obnoxious, zealot. You criticize without understanding: if you were to pay attention, you would find that most, if not all, of the virtues listed are 'noble' qualities as well--in fact, it is virtue that makes a man noble.
"in fact, it is virtue that makes a man noble"
Is what they teach you in your 'ethics' class kid? It's nobility that makes one noble. Religion is intellectual disease, I don't know how you dare defend it after equating virtue with virility.
What is nobility? What is virtue? How does nobility differ from virtue? Are you just trying to argue semantics, as if these two words had set, rigid, absolute, somehow metaphysical definitions? Why is your reputation in the green now? Why doesn't someone ban you? Why are you so obnoxious? How is religion an intellectual disease, precisely?
My 'reputation' (screw that for a joke) is in 'the green' as you put it, because you've been jacking it up, and not without adding comments each time you do, like --"You're an idiot" Are you afraid to do it out here in case someone thinks you're a bad boy?
Virtue is what comes of nobility, not the other way around. Religiosity results from intellectual failure, what is religion if not disease jcs?
The highest virtue, toward which all other virtues point, is to constantly work to destroy one's ego, such that one moves toward being one's Self.
And what's this? Destroy your ego? One isn't oneself without ones ego, and ones ego is never anything more than ones conception of oneself. You sound like a rabid buddhist spouting this crap.. It doesn't become you jcs.
Are you afraid to do it out here in case someone thinks you're a bad boy?
The admins are just looking for an excuse to spank me. :( :( :(
Virtue is what comes of nobility, not the other way around.
Support this claim.
Religiosity results from intellectual failure
Prove it prove it.
what is religion if not disease jcs?
Maybe it is a particular branch of thought, like philosophy or science? Better, maybe it is holistic (holy) thought; that is, an understanding of the world in its totality--an experience, rather than mere words.
One isn't oneself without ones ego, and ones ego is never anything more than ones conception of oneself.
Take a class in hermeneutics. 'Ego' has a few definitions; you're using a particular definition to undermine my statements. If you notice, I went on to explain what was meant by the quoted words.
Anarch
02-22-2006, 01:06 AM
Doesn't the existence of an end render virtues means, thereby reducing them to a state of conditional validity? "If you want to be happy, be honest."
Conditional validity? Nothing exists without the conditions that bring it into existence. Virtue for its own sake is not particularly self-sustaining. The relative and the absolute are not contradictory.
The highest virtue, toward which all other virtues point, is to constantly work to destroy one's ego, such that one moves toward being one's Self. As I mentioned yesterday, this basically means completely subordinating one's needs and desires at present to the ideal toward which one strives. Under the right conditions, this leads to happiness. Under bad conditions, virtue can lead to one's own suffering and death, at best giving one some sense of comfort (but probably--hopefully--not).
And what is is that one seeks? The good, is it not? Is the good not the highest fulfillment of man's potentiality? But all men are not equal - nor will they ever be. It follows that the good is not universal, though it is objective. The question is: who are you? From this, the highest potential capable of being reached is not incomprehensible. And if the good - the Self, as you call it - is a goal, it has means. Those means are the virtues.
To quote my own slightly relevant post (http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=30768&postcount=5):
'Happiness is a side effect of living successfully, a product of living one's life well - which means, self-enhancement. 'Satisfaction', as in, 'here I am, I'm all set, I'll just sit down and be content' does not happen, because we're always working towards something - whether it's paying taxes, finishing a book, enjoying some good music, performing well in sex, winning a game of pool, getting to work, beating an opponent in a fight, whatever. Happiness is not the completion of these things. From victory in these things, we derive joy, the fuel of life. Happiness is a 'state of mind', as Aristotle put it, the knowledge that one's life is functioning well.' Virtue is IMO essential to functioning well, and the knowledge that one is functioning well is happiness.
Conditional validity?
Yes.
Nothing exists without the conditions that bring it into existence.
Of course, but this statement misses the point provided by my example. You've basically said that virtue is something which must be justified, that it is a means toward an end; all of this implies that virtue would mean nothing if it did not yield a state of happiness to the virtuous.
Virtue for its own sake is not particularly self-sustaining.
Happiness is not self-sustaining. It might be something that humans desire, but so what? Virtue is something that man strives for as well. Setting happiness as one's aim seems to be an egoistic desire; that is, you seem to be approaching virtue with the intent of finding some sort of reward--and this seems to miss the point entirely. Read your Evola ;)
Those means are the virtues.
I disagree. The highest virtue (self-fulfillment, truth, authenticity, whatever--same thing; see my little dialogue with vaszoly) is the end; lesser virtues the means toward this end. As said, happiness is only realized if one who strives for the highest virtue is in the right conditions.
Let's say you're getting tortured to death. Happiness is impossible. Authenticity is not. While highest virtue may remain one's aim in this and all situations, happiness may not; and thus virtue supercedes happiness as the greatest aim.
I also seriously doubt that one can set happiness as one's aim and end up realizing that aim. Name me one individual who has realized happiness who has not created for himself a proxy for happiness, an idol of some sort, to worship in lieu of the unworshipable.
(I think we're looking at this from two different vantage points. From my vista, one can see more :p )
Anarch
02-22-2006, 02:58 AM
Of course, but this statement misses the point provided by my example. You've basically said that virtue is something which must be justified, that it is a means toward an end; all of this implies that virtue would mean nothing if it did not yield a state of happiness to the virtuous.
All things aim at an end. For man, that end is happiness, the highest fulfillment of his potential. That is the good. You're also disconnecting virtue from life, something Plato and Evola are both guilty of.
Happiness is not self-sustaining. It might be something that humans desire, but so what? Virtue is something that man strives for as well. Setting happiness as one's aim seems to be an egoistic desire; that is, you seem to be approaching virtue with the intent of finding some sort of reward--and this seems to miss the point entirely. Read your Evola ;)
Read your Aristotle. Evola is rehashed Platonism. Man does not 'strive' for virtue. Virtues are components of the good life. Taken together, they are happiness.
I disagree. The highest virtue (self-fulfillment, truth, authenticity, whatever--same thing; see my little dialogue with vaszoly) is the end; lesser virtues the means toward this end. As said, happiness is only realized if one who strives for the highest virtue is in the right conditions.
You call the highest good, virtue. I call it the good - happiness.
Let's say you're getting tortured to death. Happiness is impossible. Authenticity is not. While highest virtue may remain one's aim in this and all situations, happiness may not; and thus virtue supercedes happiness as the greatest aim.
Correction: joy is not possible, agreed. Happiness is not joy. As I just said in our MSN convo, all men strive for joy - direct victory. By joy I mean what Nietzsche referred to happiness, when he said in The Antichrist, 'happiness is the feeling of increased power'. By happiness I refer to the derivative of the structure of one's actions. The structure being virtue. Happiness - the certainty of living well, which is good for man.
I also seriously doubt that one can set happiness as one's aim and end up realizing that aim. Name me one individual who has realized happiness who has not created for himself a proxy for happiness, an idol of some sort, to worship in lieu of the unworshipable.
Name one individual? You're arguing with him :D
(I think we're looking at this from two different vantage points. From my vista, one can see more :p )
I wouldn't be so sure of that :D
Man does not 'strive' for virtue.
Men strive for virtues. Not all men strive for the same things. Man naturally pursues what he believes will make him happy: he has his own aims, in accord with his desires, which, if fulfilled, he thinks will bring him happiness. No one strives for happiness directly. One finds what makes one happy. For some, this is virtue.
Happiness - the certainty of living well, which is good for man.
We don't disagree. Your word choice is simply inappropriate. Certainty, authenticity, etc. would be better, as such terms offer a more comprehensive view of 'the good.' It is nonsensical to call a man happy who is in a state of suffering, even if he remains virtuous in that state.
Die: Virtue is what comes of nobility, not the other way around.
jcs: Support this claim.
Neesd no support, test and see if you can break it. Virtue as noble action, not nobility itself.
Die: Religiosity results from intellectual failure
jcs: Prove it prove it.
Look at any religion and its adherents. Listen also. I won't ask you to use your nose. It hasn't seemed to help you so far.
Die: ...what is religion if not disease jcs?
jcs: Maybe it is a particular branch of thought, like philosophy or science? Better, maybe it is holistic (holy) thought; that is, an understanding of the world in its totality--an experience, rather than mere words.
I won't ask you to prove this. It is definitely a branch of thought.
Die: One isn't oneself without ones ego, and ones ego is never anything more than ones conception of oneself.
jcs: Take a class in hermeneutics. 'Ego' has a few definitions; you're using a particular definition to undermine my statements. If you notice, I went on to explain what was meant by the quoted words.
Not before I take you to school. Give me one definition of ego that supercedes mine.
Anarch
02-22-2006, 09:57 AM
We don't disagree. Your word choice is simply inappropriate. Certainty, authenticity, etc. would be better, as such terms offer a more comprehensive view of 'the good.' It is nonsensical to call a man happy who is in a state of suffering, even if he remains virtuous in that state.
Ethics, last I checked, was about living well. Joy - victory - is the fuel of the living. Living well is happiness, hence the good. The virtuous man who is suffering is living well, but not as alive as he could be :cool:
Die, I'm not responding directly to you (save, perhaps, to mock you) until you demonstrate that you are capable of thinking with any depth. Basically, you're just spouting off a bunch of shallow statements, poor immitations of Nietzschean profundity, that have only an argumentative, rhetorical purpose, with no support whatsoever.
Ethics, last I checked, was about living well.
All ethical theories I am aware of aim to be as comprehensive as possible. The test for an ethical theory: how does this theory resolve that dilemma.
Living well is happiness, hence the good.
Living well produces a state of happiness in the right conditions. Even if you want to use the word, 'happiness,' to describe the feeling of certainty, the feeling that always accompanies authenticity, in the worst possible conditions, this feeling is only the effect of a cause--that cause being 'living well,' virtue, authenticity.
The virtuous man who is suffering is living well, but not as alive as he could be
The virtuous man suffering is not happy. Sure, he'd prefer to be in a better situation--he will probably also strive toward that--but one can think of innumerable instances in which virtue would demand one find oneself in an unhappy situation.
Die, I'm not responding directly to you (save, perhaps, to mock you) until you demonstrate that you are capable of thinking with any depth. Basically, you're just spouting off a bunch of shallow statements, poor immitations of Nietzschean profundity, that have only an argumentative, rhetorical purpose, with no support whatsoever.
What a cop-out! And to think I was thinking about conceding that virtue and nobility are synonymous! :D
Nearly everything you post is a cop-out from contemplation.
Péter
02-22-2006, 11:31 PM
Emotion has nothing to do with virtue if the latter is dipassionate action. How can one speak of "happiness" after desire has fallen away?
One can't. And no virtue is divorced from desire.
Anarch
02-23-2006, 01:36 AM
Emotion has nothing to do with virtue if the latter is dipassionate action. How can one speak of "happiness" after desire has fallen away?
Desire in general or a specific desire? Desire in general only stops with death. Virtue is not tied to any specific desire.
Péter
02-23-2006, 01:46 AM
Desire in general or a specific desire? Desire in general only stops with death.
Absolute statements are universally false. :D Desire can not only be vanquished, but it can also be extinguished!
Blaphbee
02-23-2006, 02:12 AM
How can one speak of "happiness" after desire has fallen away?
Because one is happy that they have no more desire?:confused:
Desire can not only be vanquished, but it can also be extinguished!
To accomplish this, must not one desire to extinguish desire, to turn the will back in upon itself? Can the ego implode?
Ones who wish to be free from desire are slaves.
:222:
Ones who wish to be free from desire are slaves.
Better to be a slave to another than to oneself.
With that kind of contemplative affectation, everyone afraid of solitude may cling to life with a 'good' conscience
:222:
Péter
02-23-2006, 02:49 AM
To accomplish this, must not one desire to extinguish desire, to turn the will back in upon itself? Can the ego implode?
This must be done gradually. There are various stages through which one must pass prior to realizing complete detachment. Naturally, the first step is to desire to extinguish craving.
Péter
02-23-2006, 02:53 AM
Ones who wish to be free from desire are slaves.
:222:
All but those who have extinguished desire are slaves to the objects of their senses.
Nope, everyone is in some sense subject to the objects of their senses.
Some people call this 'being alive'
:rofl:
Péter
02-23-2006, 03:12 AM
Nope, everyone is in some sense subject to the objects of their senses.
Yes, but addiction is a diseased state.
Addiction/craving- however you like it, has not really been in question. Jack tried to clear this up before it entered into it by asking after specific desire or desire altogether. Since desire, unless one names it, can only be understood to refer to desire itself, let's leave it alone shall we? :rofl:
Faustian Dreams
02-23-2006, 03:35 AM
It seems the general lot of you are inadequately learned in Eastern philosophy, from which vászoly's "opinions" are drawn. Hell, the Stoics and Epicureans (espoused more closely by the former) contemplated a similar approach to virtue.
I'm sure that those of you who pride yourselves in your snide remarks rank among the "critics" and not the "creators." Do not fret; you soon be forgotten, just as you will it.
What has yet to be addressed is this: are we all capable of leading a life that yields happiness?
I am of the mind that virtue stems from adherence to one's duty (dharma), however, I do not believe all beings possess the potential for cultivating discipline to the point where they denounce attachment to the fruits of their actions. Certainly, many will become discouraged along the way, and there will be those who simply cannot grasp with their pinched minds that an indulgent, solipsistic lifestyle leads to societal tension and no deep and spiritual fulfillment.
Alas, can anyone convince another that their life is not worth living?
No, no, I'm a creator still Faustian Dreams. I'll be a critic when it's your turn to be one. :D It's possible you are unaware that the critic of critics is the creator?
Now go and do your 'dharma' like you do. :rofl:
Faustian Dreams
02-23-2006, 04:12 AM
I enjoin you to engage in a more friendly handshake with "logic." Currently, you appear to be on the offensive.
It's possible you are unaware that the critic of critics is the creator?
What is this? This is shit. All in all, bad form. :nono:
I enjoin you to engage in a more friendly handshake with "logic." Currently, you appear to be on the offensive.
Quote:
It's possible you are unaware that the critic of critics is the creator?
What is this? This is shit. All in all, bad form.
Bad form because...? Any critic can call something shit. Don't desire to admit any truth to it huh? You fancy that creators are somehow inherently above criticism? :rofl:
Come on, we don't need to shake hands like the old men and moralists do, we can be logic incarnate if it comes to it (I'm addressing all you young punks), and we love to be on our toes.
;)
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.