You are right, I won't. Obviously, to ask questions about someone's moral beliefs, and challenge them to demonstrate consistency here is as bad as in Ancient Athens, and still considered an insult or an attack. It was simply something I couldn't even imagine, you know. To ask questions to clarify someone's position is not to claim that this position is not sustainable, silly, or ill-considered.GuyN said:
The problem is not in asking me to clarify as far as I understood the situation, I have no problems doing so and I did.
The problem was in taking my argument, and then going for a very ill-advised reductio ad-absurdum that insinuated something very abhorent about my beliefs. That and the stupid joke.
The problem was in taking my argument, and then going for a very ill-advised reductio ad-absurdum that insinuated something very abhorent about my beliefs. That and the stupid joke.
Redactios are never ill-advised. Nothing is ill-advised or out of bounds if it involves a rational inquiry. To claim that rational inquiries should have limits is to claim limits to what people in general can and should discuss and challenge. It is highly dogmatic, but common-place. To ask questions is not to insinuate anything, unless a person believes beforehand that the position in question is not sustainable, and he simply cannot answer them. If a person has a good answer, it is nothing to worry about. Obviously, certain things are out of bounds for you personally. Whatever. This is not a philosophy department, that's for sure, and people do not really have a professional attitude to such discussion.KnightofPhoenix said:The problem is not in asking me to clarify as far as I understood the situation, I have no problems doing so and I did.
The problem was in taking my argument, and then going for a very ill-advised reductio ad-absurdum that insinuated something very abhorent about my beliefs. That and the stupid joke.
So let's just not have them.
No, not at all. You wrote "If nothing is inherently evil, why do you jump on every mention of rape? As I understand it, rape is always evil, bad thing to do, and probably one of the few human actions that can't have any justification. I was not really joking, just trying to make a point - these two things should be judged similarly. You reaction shows that it is not, and it contradicts your professed moral nihilism. Is it for you some purely psychological Pavlovian reaction then?"vivaxardas said:You are right, I won't. Obviously, to ask questions about someone's moral beliefs, and challenge them to demonstrate consistency here is as bad as in Ancient Athens, and still considered an insult or an attack. It was simply something I couldn't even imagine, you know. To ask questions to clarify someone's position is not to claim that this position is not sustainable, silly, or ill-considered. And I did not want to put him down, or something. I actually like to discuss things with him.
Wichat and others have given good reason why apart from any "ism", rape is abhorrent.
You don't get to use the forum as a platform to claim that an act that is personally abhorrent to its members should be judged by some "ism".
You don't get to use the forum as a platform to attack this personal abhorrence as a moral inconsistency or "Pavlovian reaction".
You don't get to use the forum to make the pretense that what you call a rational inquiry into the values underlying that abhorrence is anything but a personal attack on the other members of the forum.
Back on topic,
I seem to remember them saying there would be another CGI trailer even more - paraphrasing here - spectacular than «Killing Monsters».
Does anyone else remember this?
What I don't recall is whether they said they were going to release it before launch or included it in the final game.
I seem to remember them saying there would be another CGI trailer even more - paraphrasing here - spectacular than «Killing Monsters».
Does anyone else remember this?
What I don't recall is whether they said they were going to release it before launch or included it in the final game.
Nope. Reductio ad-absurdum are by definition absurd arguments, that are designed around leaps in logic.vivaxardas said:Redactios are never ill-advised. Nothing is ill-advised or out of bounds if it involves a rational inquiry.
So there was nothing rational in the way you formulated the inquiry.
The subject itself is not out of bounds and I went out of my way to humor you despite the poor and insensitive formulation, by providing the answer.
No, I was trying to figure out how someone can accept both moral nihilism (a view that moral statements do not have truth values, or meaningless, and no act is inherently evil because nothing is evil) and reaction to certain cases. I was not trying to show that he should accept certain action as morally acceptable. Nobody should. The point of the reductio was to be a challenge to MORAL NIHILISM. Moral nihilism is a highly abstract position, may be even inconsistent, while essential badness of certain actions is virtually uncontroversial. My point was to show that self-proclaimed MORAL NIHILISM simply can't be held in such circumstances, not that certain actions are not bad, or may be justified. This is a position some claim is simply IMPOSSIBLE to hold. I was implying as you would claim that he couldn't hold this position, and that despite any proclamation, he was moral realist after all. We stared this discussion some time ago in another place, and it was a continuation.GuyN said:No, not at all. You wrote "If nothing is inherently evil, why do you jump on every mention of rape? As I understand it, rape is always evil, bad thing to do, and probably one of the few human actions that can't have any justification. I was not really joking, just trying to make a point - these two things should be judged similarly. You reaction shows that it is not, and it contradicts your professed moral nihilism. Is it for you some purely psychological Pavlovian reaction then?"
Wichat and others have given good reason why apart from any "ism", rape is abhorrent.
You don't get to use the forum as a platform to claim that an act that is personally abhorrent to its members should be judged by some "ism".
You don't get to use the forum as a platform to attack this personal abhorrence as a moral inconsistency or "Pavlovian reaction".
You don't get to use the forum to make the pretense that what you call a rational inquiry into the values underlying that abhorrence is anything but a personal attack on the other members of the forum.
Anyway, it is obviously over now. May be we all should return to TW3 or something.
And I have responded and shown you how it is consistent, so you can move on.
You continued it here, on a subject and in a manner not consistent with a rational discussion of moral philosophy but rather on a subject and in a manner calculated to shock and offend.vivaxardas said:No, I was trying to figure out how someone can accept both moral nihilism (a view that moral statements do not have truth values, or meaningless, and no act is inherently evil because nothing is evil) and reaction to certain cases. I was not trying to show that he should accept certain action as morally acceptable. Nobody should. The point of the reductio was to be a challenge to MORAL NIHILISM. Moral nihilism is a highly abstract position, may be even inconsistent, while essential badness of certain actions is virtually uncontroversial. My point was to show that self-proclaimed MORAL NIHILISM simply can't be held in such circumstances, not that certain actions are not bad, or may be justified. This is a position some claim is simply IMPOSSIBLE to hold. I was implying as you would claim that he couldn't hold this position, and was moral realist after all. We stared this discussion some time ago in another place, and it was a continuation.
Moderator:
Posts will be removed, and members suspended, as needed to prevent any continuation of this charade. This is the last word on the subject.
Socratic... aethenians....
you can revive from the grave anyone you want, you've been warned and end of the story.
you can revive from the grave anyone you want, you've been warned and end of the story.
Yeah I remember something along the lines of saying this trailer was part of something bigger, but I can't remember by whom, where and how it was said.^^AgentBlue said:Back on topic,
I seem to remember them saying there would be another CGI trailer even more - paraphrasing here - spectacular than «Killing Monsters».
Does anyone else remember this?
What I don't recall is whether they said they were going to release it before launch or included it in the final game.
Audio leak?ViZ7 said:Yeah I remember something along the lines of saying this trailer was part of something bigger, but I can't remember by whom, where and how it was said.^^
Operation WitchiLeaks must proceed.
Calling all attendees!
I sure want to see that bigger thing, and soon.ViZ7 said:Yeah I remember something along the lines of saying this trailer was part of something bigger, but I can't remember by whom, where and how it was said.^^
Nice avatar. Though Gerald looks a real senior citizen now. I would be half-expecting to hear, as in The Last of Us, 20 years have passed (between TW2 and TW3). Hope we can rejuvenate him somehow, shave or something.
Well beards generally make people appear older. x)vivaxardas said:I sure want to see that bigger thing, and soon.
Nice avatar. Though Gerald looks a real senior citizen now. I would be half-expecting to hear, as in The Last of Us, 20 years have passed (between TW2 and TW3). Hope we can rejuvenate him somehow, shave or something.
There's a map.Alextyc1 said:The witcher homepage has been changed...
I suspect that something is approaching from cdpr
I don't see any map. Can you post a link please?AgentBlue said:There's a map.
Well, sort of, sorry guys for pumping you up over this.
Two tiny excerpts, bottom left and right corners,
Backdrops and probably known to you guys who have played past games.
It does seem to me that since they're using screenshots they've showed us around E3, new might be coming.
Two tiny excerpts, bottom left and right corners,
Backdrops and probably known to you guys who have played past games.
It does seem to me that since they're using screenshots they've showed us around E3, new might be coming.