From: cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Point Allocation vs Random Generation
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:03:53 GMT
Reply-To: cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Originator: cassidy@cottonwood.cps.msu.edu

In article <1992Nov11.142501.1@wharton.upenn.edu> millerl@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.165943.3825@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy) writes:
>> In article <loren.199@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu> loren@wmkt.wharton.upenn.edu (Loren Miller) writes:

>>     As I've explained in other newsgroups, nobody walks around
>> waiting to be persuaded to the opposite opinion.  Oh yeah, and don't
>> try to "force" me to think I'm wrong on this by writing a rebuttal.
>
>Don't be silly. You and I agree that people are going to keep their
>opinions, and that nobody is going to walk around asking to have their
>opinions on random characters or point balanced characters changed by a
>character design missionary. The problem with Dave's argument is that he
>assumes that you can *prove* that point allocation is superior to random
>rolling, that Truth is meaningful and can be objectively determined. In
>short, he tried to convert his opponent in this debate to his own value
>system. If you do not believe, as Dave does, that one opinion or another
>can be objectively determined to be superior, then his argument will
>never get anywhere. If you accept his assumptions then his conclusions
>follow naturally, but if you accept them then you are converted and he
>has "forced" or "caused" you to believe as he does.

	Loren, Does that mean that if I accept your assumptions from this 
argument that I am forced to believe as you do?  My original point is that
it would be impossible to conduct a discussion if we worried about whether or 
not we were forcing others to take our view.  I couldn't say anything unless I 
was sure that you would agree with it too.  Trying to convince someone of 
something -- as it is that people do not walk around being ready to be convinced
of something that they do not hold to -- is by definition "forcing" others to 
believe as we do.  If the word "forcing" appears to rash, that is because it is.
Because if we tested whether of not Dave has done anything to deny you of your
right to an opinion, we would have to conclude that he has not.  He has not 
threatened to mail-bomb you or anything along those lines.  He has only 
threatened to talk more and more about it.  Trying to make it appear as if he is
"forcing" his views on others, is an effort to get him to shut up.  Question: 
Does Dave now hold the idea that he should shut up.  Obviously not.  There fore
only if he accepts your premise that superiority is a completely subjective and
moot point, will he do what you want him to do.

	Face it that's the reason that we LIKE r.g.f.a, is because we like to
have conflicts of opinion.  We don't mind someone dogging our system if we
get a chance to dog theirs back. :)
  
>
>-- 
>whoah,
>+++++++++++++++++++++++23
>Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu


	John J Cassidy		cassidy@cps.msu.edu
	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	      "It never hurts to help" -- Eek