To be fairly honest I think the OP gets the point already, this whole thing has started to drag on and on.
Ultimately, whether he was wrong or not doesn't matter, it's more important if OP and his friend have reconciled over this matter and that no lasting damage has been done to their friendship.
....you know a topic has gone too far on when people are quoting things from the Bible...
I'll put this at the front of the post for all you skimmers. This post and all it replies to are irrelevant to the discussion, leave them alone.
Eherm.
I beg to differ. This is a moral debate, and scripture deals primarily with morals. Pretty much all scripture involves morals, and lots of them. To quote it in a moral discussion is perfectly fine, though a bit of an overstep.
Now back on topic with you all.
Ultimately, whether he was wrong or not doesn't matter, it's more important if OP and his friend have reconciled over this matter and that no lasting damage has been done to their friendship.
This isn't actually about this issue anymore To me and maybe a few others, this is now a conversation of morals, and I feel obliged to continue it in all its interesting glory. If tha bothers people too much, I'll gladly make a topic devoted to the morality of commensalism, though it will do little more than act as a pointless subthread to this thread.
Yeah, but just because it's based on morals, doesn't mean you need to start quoting the Bible.
Everybody has their way of doing things. Some whip out raw logic, some use pathos and emotional responses, and some others head straight to religious texts. I may not like it, but who am I to judge the way another person makes a point? We can all agree that the morals in the quote are reasonable and good, and that's that. Ignore the source for now, and focus on the moral he's stating and how it applies. If we get a massive wave of bibliical material that gets controversial, THEN we can say it's uncalled for. But as of now, let it go.
Back on topic once more, is it moral to eat what people throw away? You gain, they lose nothing since they chucked it anyways. Not the same scenario, but still the same kin dof symbiosis and a similar example.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
At a loss for words? Here's a few you can use: Welcome, to Night Vale...
I'll put this at the front of the post for all you skimmers. This post and all it replies to are irrelevant to the discussion, leave them alone.
Eherm.
I beg to differ. This is a moral debate, and scripture deals primarily with morals. Pretty much all scripture involves morals, and lots of them. To quote it in a moral discussion is perfectly fine, though a bit of an overstep.
Now back on topic with you all.
This isn't actually about this issue anymore To me and maybe a few others, this is now a conversation of morals, and I feel obliged to continue it in all its interesting glory.
Very well then, if going on about the morality of the issue. I will firstly say that, quotations from a bible should be left out, due to the fact that not everyone is religious and thus could be offending some people on a whole different level, as silly as it may seem be.
On the notion of moral...I cannot say that, taking something from someone whatever one's intentions may be with them, is a good thing. Yes OP considered his actions to be good, as due to taking the diamonds there would be more diamonds generated thanks to the sudden loss and thus ending up with more. It is not exactly clear what happened to said diamonds next but assuming from said friend's anger they were most likely kept or used by the OP for other things. Which is wrong, though if OP had stashed them into a chest, then said friend did overreact.
I will however, still stand to the point that, whatever your intentions may be, you generally do not mess with other people's stuff without their permission.
That's a very different scenario... The clone of this would be that his friend chucked some diamonds down a hole and he picked them up.
As I said, very different example, but same symbiosis type.
I will firstly say that, quotations from a bible should be left out, due to the fact that not everyone is religious and thus could be offending some people on a whole different level, as silly as it may seem be.
A good idea. I was simply saying that the one quote should be taken as a moral set and with its origin ignored for the sake of keeping this off of religion. From now on, we'll see if we can't stay of religion.
On the notion of moral...I cannot say that, taking something from someone whatever one's intentions may be with them, is a good thing. Yes OP considered his actions to be good, as due to taking the diamonds there would be more diamonds generated thanks to the sudden loss and thus ending up with more. It is not exactly clear what happened to said diamonds next but assuming from said friend's anger they were most likely kept or used by the OP for other things. Which is wrong, though if OP had stashed them into a chest, then said friend did overreact.
Does what he did with them matter? What matters is the taking, not what was done afterwards, though it is possible that said line of thought could be productive if properly persued.
I will however, still stand to the point that, whatever your intentions may be, you generally do not mess with other people's stuff without their permission. And like a true Ouroborus or anything else lik eunto it, this conversation has finished its cycle. Once more the issue of whether or not those were technically his friends diamonds has returned.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
At a loss for words? Here's a few you can use: Welcome, to Night Vale...
Quoting Aristotle or Plato in order to prove a logical point is EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE to me. I have certain BELIEFS and VALUES that Aristotle OFFENDS. It is completely HORRIBLE for anyone to quote that TERRIBLE person.
You see the issue? Quoting the Bible (a treatise on moral affairs) is just like quoting one of Aesop's fables. It's a simple little story that shows a moral issue, how it is solved/not solved, and the author's view on the issue. Aesop disguised all this behind silly animals. As such, people seem to be perfectly fine with them. The Bible does not hide it's points behind animals, and as such, is constantly ripped on, despite the fact that the main part of it deals with issues of morality.
If someone is that sensitive, that they cannot stand having a book quoted, they may want to stay off the Internet. I have to constantly see articles that bash my values and beliefs (the Aristotle thing was a joke, btw), but I simply brush it off and don't spew allegations everywhere.
Now then, back to the topic on hand. I need something clarified. Does EMC build up infinitely, or does it have a cap? (i.e., did taking the diamonds take away potential EMC that could have been stored infinitely?)
Now then, back to the topic on hand. I need something clarified. Does EMC build up infinitely, or does it have a cap? (i.e., did taking the diamonds take away potential EMC that could have been stored infinitely?)
In this case it stored in a chest up to a limit. In this case we'll pretend a stack. The EMC filled the chest and then ceased working due to fillup. The OP emptied the diamond stash, and the EMC started filling it again. When his friend came back, the chest was once again full with however many diamonds had been there in the first place.
At least, that's what I gathered from the OP in both senses of the abbreviation.
Okay, I see now that this cannot come to a conclusion. I presented my good point of the logic of there being no loss to the victim and also efficiency increased. On the other hand, you guys are saying that I used his property to make profit, where I countered that it was his fault to let his chest fill up. That point is not good enough for you guys I suppose, and I have no more arguments to my case.
For now, I'm going to say nobody is correct unless some genius comes and proves a side completely wrong.
You used his item for your benefit. He did the work to get the item and you're just mooching off it. I can see how that would make someone mad. Just give him the diamonds because you can do the same thing if you save up enough items to make it.
That's what my logic was, but there seems to be a lot of people disagreeing.
you are either completely clueless, or purposely ignoring what "a lot of people" are actually saying...
you took something that was not yours without asking and without having been given permission. that is theft. your buddy had a right to be annoyed. how much more simple can we make this for you?
you are either completely clueless, or purposely ignoring what "a lot of people" are actually saying...
you took something that was not yours without asking and without having been given permission. that is theft. your buddy had a right to be annoyed. how much more simple can we make this for you?
I did not ignore everybody, and I made a post to clear that up.
Okay, I see now that this cannot come to a conclusion. I presented my good point of the logic of there being no loss to the victim and also efficiency increased. On the other hand, you guys are saying that I used his property to make profit, where I countered that it was his fault to let his chest fill up. That point is not good enough for you guys I suppose, and I have no more arguments to my case.
For now, I'm going to say nobody is correct unless some genius comes and proves a side completely wrong.
whether he lost anything or not is not the point. theft is theft, even of a regenerating item. what don't you get about this?
also, you asked for people:s opinions. but you reply like a counter opinion is wrong... what was the point of your post then?
Who cares if he stole or not? He didn't lose any potential value. His friend has no reason to freak out. If that was me in that situation, I'd be glad that my excess stock helped someone else. Sure, I'd be like, "you coulda at least asked first," but it already happened. So, why worry about something that already happened? I still have my full chest of diamonds.
That point aside, I'd have also been a little smarter in terms of planning out how long I plan to be AFK, and accommodate by producing higher EMC items so the chest doesn't fill up.
Who cares if he stole or not? He didn't lose any potential value. His friend has no reason to freak out. If that was me in that situation, I'd be glad that my excess stock helped someone else. Sure, I'd be like, "you coulda at least asked first," but it already happened. So, why worry about something that already happened? I still have my full chest of diamonds.
That point aside, I'd have also been a little smarter in terms of planning out how long I plan to be AFK, and accommodate by producing higher EMC items so the chest doesn't fill up.
This is the main thing, if his friend still ended up with a chest full of diamonds. Why cause such a huge fuss over it, I mean they are friends and wouldn't they be glad to help each other whenever possible?
this isn't about whether anyone "cares" if he "stole or not." it's also not a popularity contest where if X amount of people say it's not theft, then it's not theft.
This is the main thing, if his friend still ended up with a chest full of diamonds. Why cause such a huge fuss over it, I mean they are friends and wouldn't they be glad to help each other whenever possible?
Exactly!
Not only that, 15 stacks of diamonds in EE is nothing at all. You can churn those things out at 1 every 7 seconds with a full-efficiency power flower.
Ultimately, whether he was wrong or not doesn't matter, it's more important if OP and his friend have reconciled over this matter and that no lasting damage has been done to their friendship.
I'll put this at the front of the post for all you skimmers. This post and all it replies to are irrelevant to the discussion, leave them alone.
Eherm.
I beg to differ. This is a moral debate, and scripture deals primarily with morals. Pretty much all scripture involves morals, and lots of them. To quote it in a moral discussion is perfectly fine, though a bit of an overstep.
Now back on topic with you all.
This isn't actually about this issue anymore To me and maybe a few others, this is now a conversation of morals, and I feel obliged to continue it in all its interesting glory. If tha bothers people too much, I'll gladly make a topic devoted to the morality of commensalism, though it will do little more than act as a pointless subthread to this thread.
Everybody has their way of doing things. Some whip out raw logic, some use pathos and emotional responses, and some others head straight to religious texts. I may not like it, but who am I to judge the way another person makes a point? We can all agree that the morals in the quote are reasonable and good, and that's that. Ignore the source for now, and focus on the moral he's stating and how it applies. If we get a massive wave of bibliical material that gets controversial, THEN we can say it's uncalled for. But as of now, let it go.
Back on topic once more, is it moral to eat what people throw away? You gain, they lose nothing since they chucked it anyways. Not the same scenario, but still the same kin dof symbiosis and a similar example.
Very well then, if going on about the morality of the issue. I will firstly say that, quotations from a bible should be left out, due to the fact that not everyone is religious and thus could be offending some people on a whole different level, as silly as it may seem be.
On the notion of moral...I cannot say that, taking something from someone whatever one's intentions may be with them, is a good thing. Yes OP considered his actions to be good, as due to taking the diamonds there would be more diamonds generated thanks to the sudden loss and thus ending up with more. It is not exactly clear what happened to said diamonds next but assuming from said friend's anger they were most likely kept or used by the OP for other things. Which is wrong, though if OP had stashed them into a chest, then said friend did overreact.
I will however, still stand to the point that, whatever your intentions may be, you generally do not mess with other people's stuff without their permission.
As I said, very different example, but same symbiosis type.
You see the issue? Quoting the Bible (a treatise on moral affairs) is just like quoting one of Aesop's fables. It's a simple little story that shows a moral issue, how it is solved/not solved, and the author's view on the issue. Aesop disguised all this behind silly animals. As such, people seem to be perfectly fine with them. The Bible does not hide it's points behind animals, and as such, is constantly ripped on, despite the fact that the main part of it deals with issues of morality.
If someone is that sensitive, that they cannot stand having a book quoted, they may want to stay off the Internet. I have to constantly see articles that bash my values and beliefs (the Aristotle thing was a joke, btw), but I simply brush it off and don't spew allegations everywhere.
Now then, back to the topic on hand. I need something clarified. Does EMC build up infinitely, or does it have a cap? (i.e., did taking the diamonds take away potential EMC that could have been stored infinitely?)
In this case it stored in a chest up to a limit. In this case we'll pretend a stack. The EMC filled the chest and then ceased working due to fillup. The OP emptied the diamond stash, and the EMC started filling it again. When his friend came back, the chest was once again full with however many diamonds had been there in the first place.
At least, that's what I gathered from the OP in both senses of the abbreviation.
For now, I'm going to say nobody is correct unless some genius comes and proves a side completely wrong.
Proud member of spigotmc.org.
You used his item for your benefit. He did the work to get the item and you're just mooching off it. I can see how that would make someone mad. Just give him the diamonds because you can do the same thing if you save up enough items to make it.
Click the picture!
-Derek Shunia
That's what my logic was, but there seems to be a lot of people disagreeing.
Proud member of spigotmc.org.
you are either completely clueless, or purposely ignoring what "a lot of people" are actually saying...
you took something that was not yours without asking and without having been given permission. that is theft. your buddy had a right to be annoyed. how much more simple can we make this for you?
/topic
I did not ignore everybody, and I made a post to clear that up.
Yes, he lost nothing. And no, it's not like we're in a contest for money.
Proud member of spigotmc.org.
also, you asked for people:s opinions. but you reply like a counter opinion is wrong... what was the point of your post then?
Who cares if he stole or not? He didn't lose any potential value. His friend has no reason to freak out. If that was me in that situation, I'd be glad that my excess stock helped someone else. Sure, I'd be like, "you coulda at least asked first," but it already happened. So, why worry about something that already happened? I still have my full chest of diamonds.
That point aside, I'd have also been a little smarter in terms of planning out how long I plan to be AFK, and accommodate by producing higher EMC items so the chest doesn't fill up.
Click the picture!
-Derek Shunia
This is the main thing, if his friend still ended up with a chest full of diamonds. Why cause such a huge fuss over it, I mean they are friends and wouldn't they be glad to help each other whenever possible?
it is theft, pure and simple.
Exactly!
Not only that, 15 stacks of diamonds in EE is nothing at all. You can churn those things out at 1 every 7 seconds with a full-efficiency power flower.
Click the picture!
-Derek Shunia