Profile for Thuryl


Recent posts

Pages

AuthorRecent posts
Scenario placing in Blades of Avernum
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #15
quote:
Originally written by Jeran Korak:

And one more thing: Who is Monty Haul?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_Make_a_Deal[/url]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Satellite Shootdown in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #18
quote:
Originally written by Jeran Korak:

Just one question: What would happen if that fuel entered the Atmosphere?
Probably not much, to be honest. Hydrazine isn't good for you, but the atmosphere is a big place.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Is it old? in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #13
quote:
Originally written by Diprosopus:

Citizen Kane was much fun.
You're a gimmick.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Geology Lecture in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #54
quote:
Originally written by Dikiyoba:

It's important to remember that mass school shootings are infrequent--they're just guaranteed to make national news when they do occur. So any preventive measure has to be cost-effective and extremely convienient to be worth it.

Also, to a certain extent, the more often emergency measures are taken, the less effective they become. My high school abused the lockdown to the point where it was a joke. If there had been an actual incident, it would be hard to get everyone to take it seriously until too late. Being complacent may be worse than being unprepared.

Dikiyoba.

You know, they could easily solve both of these problems in one fell swoop by actually hiring someone to come into school with a gun and shoot at people every so often.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Satellite Shootdown in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #8
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

Please just use simpler language. Believe it or not, it will make you sound smarter, because you'll be making better sense.
This. For the sake of all that is good and holy, this. Using big words does not make you look smarter; it makes you look like you're trying to hide the fact that you have nothing substantial to talk about. This is doubly true when you don't know what the big words you're using mean. There have been studies done on it and everything.

[ Wednesday, February 20, 2008 18:51: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
AAAAAAAH!!! in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #19
quote:
Originally written by The Almighty Doer of Stuff:

Randomizer, are you sure you don't have a virus (and I'm not talking herpes)?
It's actually pretty common for viruses to spoof addresses from the infectee's address book, so it may be that someone Randomiser knows has a virus. That happened in the Lyceum community once -- one person had a virus and everyone else started receiving spam supposedly from Alcritas, Brett Bixler and so on.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Analysis of Scenario Ratings in Blades of Avernum
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #7
quote:
Originally written by Restoration Action Figure:

ASR isn't controversial though.

Great chart. One comment: isn't 'poor' typically a worse gradation than 'bad'? I always remember excellent, good, fair, bad, poor from school (and Angband pseudo-ID).

Apparently descriptive linguistics does rot your brain. :P

I've always considered "poor" to be less bad than "bad". And the worst Angband pseudo-ID is "terrible"; as far as I'm aware, there's no "poor" pseudo-ID.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Scope of Ethics in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #66
quote:
Originally written by Diprosopus:

I simply wished to pose the dilemma which I humbly suspect a discontent poses to Kantianism: Can those who act contrarily to treating humanity as an end really be called irrational? People find themselves in situations where they would have to violate their impartially ethical commitments to avoid personal detriment. Is expecting someone to stay committed to her ethics really unreasonable? If it is, then I fail to see what authority that ethical system could claim.

(If it's reasonable–which I doubt–then the CI permits the dissenter to object at the same time it permits the others to act on their maxim in spite of the dissenter. And yet, it's not difficult for people to agree that both parties cooperating in a prisoner's dilemma is preferable to both parties defecting, and so by the CI's own standards, it must forbid violating the objections of rational dissenters to its maxims.)

Now hang on, you're playing a clever trick with words here to create a false dilemma. You're saying that either it's rational to act in accordance with one's own sincerely-held ethical beliefs, in which case Kantians face a contradiction when they try to enforce their ethics on others, or it's irrational to act in accordance with one's own sincerely-held ethical beliefs, in which case Kantians are just plain wrong.

Basically, what you're asking for is a Kantian analysis of the maxim: "It is always permissible to act in accordance with one's own sincerely-held ethical beliefs". Put that way, I don't think many people would agree with it, unless they think terrorism is okay. To a Kantian, it's obviously only rational to act in accordance with Kantian ethical beliefs.

As a final aside: not every real-life situation is reducible to the prisoner's dilemma. Sometimes cooperating for the sake of cooperation does more harm than good. (See also: the Abilene paradox.)

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Geology Lecture in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #24
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

Hur. You can do better than that.
Any comment on my edit about zoning regulations? Since you believe that if it's okay for a rural dweller to own a gun, it should also be okay for a city dweller, do you also believe that if it's okay for someone to build a skyscraper on land in the middle of a city, it should be okay for someone else to do the same in the suburbs?

According to actor network theory, one of the foremost philosophical methods of analysing technology, objects do not exist in isolation but are "hybridised" with the people, places and objects they interact with: the gun-in-the-city is not the same object as the gun-on-the-farm, even if they're the same model of gun. It's perfectly reasonable to ban one but not the other. It's not about giving different rights to different people, but about acknowledging that some objects have a different nature depending on when and where they're used.

[ Saturday, February 16, 2008 13:52: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Scope of Ethics in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #57
quote:
Originally written by Diprosopus:

Of course if you're saying that following common sense is an ethical system unto itself, that's... something, I suppose. At least, it would certainly be a courageous position to hold. :)
Hey, if it's good enough for G. E. Moore...

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Geology Lecture in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #22
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

I could expect a response time of 30 minutes if there was a fire.
I know they call it "firefighting", but a gun won't help you do it.

quote:
If you suggest that it is okay for me to own guns, but not someone who lives in a suburb, then you are creating classes of people. Some citizens will have some rights, and some have others. Unfortunately we created this principled land under the assumption that we were all created with the same rights. A step toward partitioned rights is a step toward slavery and eventual total erosion of property rights.
Oh, don't be precious. By the same logic you may as well rail against zoning regulations.

[ Saturday, February 16, 2008 13:37: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Getting political in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #116
quote:
Originally written by Restoration Action Figure:

Is this true? I haven't encountered this elephant before, and I can't find it anywhere in the wikipedia article on the US electoral college. I thought electors were appointed by winning parties on a per-election basis.
It's SoT. He's being silly. You've either been reading far too much Robert Anton Wilson or not nearly enough.

[ Friday, February 15, 2008 20:13: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Getting political in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #108
It's not like people don't already have kids for stupider reasons. I don't have an exact figure for how many babies born last year were the result of unplanned pregnancies, but it's on the order of 50%.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Scope of Ethics in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #49
quote:
Originally written by Zeviz:

However, if assumption #2 is wrong, both GR and CI would lead to an empty set of rules for others, so the result would still be the same. (CI, as I understand it, doesn't say that you have to formulate rules for others. It just says that if you do make rules for others, you better follow them yourself, which is the same as conclusion I get from GR applying assumption #1.)
I don't think you can believe that a moral rule you follow yourself needn't be applied to others and still call that rule a categorical imperative. If you believe that the categorical imperative really exists, then by definition you believe that it applies in the same way to everybody, regardless of who they are or what circumstances they're in. That's what the "categorical" part of "categorical imperative" means.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
2008 Movies you're looking forward to in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #15
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

Unspeakable things have already been done to "The Legend of Zelda" on the small screen.
If you think that's bad, check out the Phillips CD-i games sometime.

[ Wednesday, February 13, 2008 16:06: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Handy Abominable Photo Thread in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #57
quote:
Originally written by Xel'Raga:

BURN!!!!!!!!!!
That is neither you nor a hand.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Scope of Ethics in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #47
quote:
Originally written by Randomizer:

That's the advantage of situational ethics in that you can always justify your actions even if you do different ones when the same problem occurs. Other ethical systems will always have exceptions or you can find an absurbist reduction to make them fail.
Well, yes, an ethical system in which you can always justify your actions is awfully convenient, but as a society we'd surely rather have an ethical system in which some actions aren't justifiable.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
2008 Movies you're looking forward to in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #5
quote:
Originally written by Xel'Raga the Slaughtering Omni:

I'm afraid they can, think about it, which one to do, and if so would they make the other ones, mind you, link doesn't talk, so it would be different, I personally just don't think its worth it.
When your mother dropped you on your head as an infant, was it accidental or deliberate?

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Scope of Ethics in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #45
If the trolls are the only people keeping the topic alive, it's not really trolling.

EDIT: Gert's theory of morality has its own problems. If morality depends on the judgement of an impartial rational person, then we'll never find out what's moral and what isn't, because no such person has yet been found to exist. Even by Gert's rather idiosyncratic and strained definition of rationality, there's good evidence that everybody is irrational at least some of the time -- and it hardly needs to be said that nobody is ever impartial.

The problem with all deontological theories of morality, in fact, is that they assume that people have reasons for acting the way they do, and that those reasons are knowable. This is patent nonsense: there's a wealth of empirical evidence that our minds routinely invent reasons for doing things because we already want to do them. Only rarely do we decide what we want to do based on what we have the best reason for doing. Holding people to account for the reasons behind their actions is an exercise in pointlessness, because usually they don't know, even when they think they do. The mind is, at its base, a loose aggregation of conflicting drives and desires; we try to work out why we do what we do after the fact, and mostly we fail.

[ Tuesday, February 12, 2008 03:34: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Scope of Ethics in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #43
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Your "second example," i.e., "then I pose the dilemma (as does Mr. Thuryl) of the two foes who request that you assist them in fighting the other"? I can't find the antecedent to this statement in this topic, so I can't say for sure what you're talking about, but the GR doesn't imply that you must enslave yourself to the whims of others. If you're in a situation of helping one person to the disadvantage of another or helping the second to the disadvantage of the first, then a reasonable application of the GR is that it prohibits helping either one, since by doing so you would be doing to the other something that you wouldn't want done to yourself.
At this point, I don't think that we can go much further without distinguishing between the positive and the negative formulation of the Golden Rule.

The positive formulation, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", does indeed seem to run into a paradox in the case of the two foes requesting assistance. If we make the reasonable assumption that there is a moral duty to avoid placing oneself in a situation where every available option is morally wrong, then the only way out of the paradox seems to lie not in changing the "do unto others" part but changing the "do unto you" part. That is, the GR implies a moral duty to not want outside assistance if you find yourself in a fight, because wanting such assistance could place you in a situation where you would have mutually exclusive moral obligations to assist others. I'll leave it to you to decide how plausible you think such a duty is.

The negative formulation, "do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you", clearly does not prevent you from simply walking away if two people on opposite ends of a fight both ask for your assistance. However, the problem is that it's far too restrictive, and denies the possibility of asymmetric social relationships. Psychotherapists give advice to their patients, but don't want to receive advice in return: in fact, it's actively discouraged, and for very good practical reasons. You can kind of work around this problem with a heavily nuanced and situation-dependent definition of "do unto others", but then you've lost the simplicity that made the rule appealing in the first place, and you may as well become a utilitarian and be done with it.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Scope of Ethics in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #39
quote:
Originally written by Diprosopus:

Even if you pursue that which is good (i.e. what you want) first, is it inconceivable to say that it's right to pursue that which is good? You seem to be advocating ethical egoism.
I never met anyone who needed ethics to convince him to be an egoist.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Getting political in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #68
quote:
Originally written by Zeviz:

How many major European countries have disbanded their armies and replaced Department of Defence with Department of Peace? That's not the only "non-standard" thing Kucinich proposed, but that's the one I've heard about the most lately.
Really, who the hell is going to invade the US? Mexico? Canada? Japan is doing just fine with a very limited military, and it has China breathing down its neck.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Scope of Ethics in General
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #35
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

One needs to examine not merely the physical action being performed but all of the ramifications of the action in order to analyze it under the GR.
But if you're going to interpret it that broadly, how does "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" differ from "do unto others as they would have you do unto them"?

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Should there be a big battle at the end of geneforge 5? in Geneforge 4: Rebellion
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #24
quote:
Originally written by Diprosopus:

Why are you people writing (and reading) so many of each other's pages about retro, shareware RPGs? Could not your time and energy be better spent?
"The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." -- Bertrand Russell

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
E2: Formello, Fort Draco and Motrax in The Exile Trilogy
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #11
Shift-W, actually.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00

Pages