LotV Trailer!

[TheEconomist]

No. Just no. No. No No. No. No.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Just no. No. No No. No. No.

[ragnarok]

It's your view of how you see him, that's fine with me.

[Nissa]

In other words, an immoral person may do something deemed immoral, know it's immoral, but do it anyway. An amoral individual lacks the framework to comprehend the concept of morality.

I know these things are dictionary different. They are, in practical terms, the same. Either or, not something a person would want to call oneself.

[ragnarok]

I know these things are dictionary different. They are, in practical terms, the same. Either or, not something a person would want to call oneself.

That's harder to say, Nissa. For an IMMORAL person, you'd be tried as a criminal in court. For AMORAL, it COULD be criminal, but it could also be a simple matter of gross negligence. Granted that's not much better than criminal, but still.

[Nissa]

That's harder to say, Nissa. For an IMMORAL person, you'd be tried as a criminal in court. For AMORAL, it COULD be criminal, but it could also be a simple matter of gross negligence. Granted that's not much better than criminal, but still.

It's only a difference when you nitpick. That, and the lines tend to blur a lot when you read about dictators. For example, Mao Tse Tung did not care about anyone, and killed at his discretion, as an amoral person would. However, he developed intense, random fears, like of birds. One of his minions developed a massive fear of the ocean. Mao and others developed an intense dependency on sleeping pills, and could consume what would be enough to kill most people.

In other words, a person can claim to be or appear to be amoral, but in the end that's just a label, and in their heart they know they've done wrong, and this knowledge will manifest itself in one way or another.

[ragnarok]

It's only a difference when you nitpick. That, and the lines tend to blur a lot when you read about dictators. For example, Mao Tse Tung did not care about anyone, and killed at his discretion, as an amoral person would. However, he developed intense, random fears, like of birds. One of his minions developed a massive fear of the ocean. Mao and others developed an intense dependency on sleeping pills, and could consume what would be enough to kill most people.

In other words, a person can claim to be or appear to be amoral, but in the end that's just a label, and in their heart they know they've done wrong, and this knowledge will manifest itself in one way or another.

Oh I wouldn't say that. I admit war veterans, many years after the war ended, will admit to their personal guilt for atrocities and will concede that what they thought was amoral back then is actually immoral now that they look back. But there are also those will stubbornly refuse to they did anything wrong, assuming of course they admit to an amoral action, and take it all the way to the grave.

[Nissa]

Oh I wouldn't say that. I admit war veterans, many years after the war ended, will admit to their personal guilt for atrocities and will concede that what they thought was amoral back then is actually immoral now that they look back. But there are also those will stubbornly refuse to they did anything wrong, assuming of course they admit to an amoral action, and take it all the way to the grave.

It doesn't matter if they admit they did wrong or not. That, and veterans wouldn't say their actions were "amoral" (I live in a military town and have never once heard that). That, and it actually is questionable if a veteran has done something wrong -- another debate for another day. I'm talking about when an immoral or amoral person has done something definitely wrong. In that case, there is no material difference.

[ragnarok]

It doesn't matter if they admit they did wrong or not. That, and veterans wouldn't say their actions were "amoral" (I live in a military town and have never once heard that). That, and it actually is questionable if a veteran has done something wrong -- another debate for another day. I'm talking about when an immoral or amoral person has done something definitely wrong. In that case, there is no material difference.

Well an amoral person wouldn't know he/she did something wrong. An immoral person would know it, but would not care.

[Nissa]

Again, immaterial difference. It doesn't matter if they think they're doing wrong, it only matters if they are REALLY doing wrong.

I hope my point is clear. If not, eh.

[ragnarok]

Again, immaterial difference. It doesn't matter if they think they're doing wrong, it only matters if they are REALLY doing wrong.

I hope my point is clear. If not, eh.

I understand that, but "REALLY doing wrong" is relative. "Right" and "wrong" are just POVs, after all...