Zero Punctuation: inFamous

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Pellucid:

AceDiamond:
Well now we all know which side of the political toast you butter, Mr. Transparency. The format of these videos aren't designed as a buildup to a punchline, I hope you do realize. And if you don't realize, well then I feel a bit sorry for you.

Actually I'm pretty moderate,

No, you're not.

You may occasionally wind up in the middle because of the accident of your extreme views leading to the same conclusion as someone who is a moderate, but no: that doesn't make you a moderate anymore than a broken clock is a working clock if you look at it when the time is 12:00

Pellucid:
You've laid out a lot of unsustainable and insane positions, such as that we shouldn't be allowed to punish serial killers.

Strawman.

So yes, that's exactly what a law is. You're arguing with the dictionary.

Dictionaries focus on descriptive definitions

We are talking in terms of normative definitions.

Use your dictionary to look up those two words if you don't know what they mean.

Does it involve the infliction of pain for any purpose beyond stopping physical resistance to custody with no more force than required? Then it's torture.

Heck, your definition of torture is so bad, gang bang ass rape wouldn't be considered torture as long as you used enough lube.

Rape leaves long-term psychological damage on the victim

And waterboarding doesn't?

One day you're going to realize how ridiculously unsustainable your position is, but you're going to have to grow up a lot before you do, so this is the last I'm going to attempt to discuss the topic with you. You're simply not in a mature enough mental state to handle a discussion grounded in logic and reason, and I'm neither going to be able to enlighten you, nor you me until you are.

In other words, you've dug yourself into a hole, so you're going to throw out a few statements you think might cause me trouble before leaving.

Sorry they not only didn't give me trouble, but made the position you're arguing look even worse--'waterboarding leaves no leaves long-term psychological damage'...

i'm surprised no one started the prototype-inFamous war yet :O Youtube is filled with that!

Shoqiyqa:

Pellucid:
Actually I'm pretty moderate, it's just that "Republicans = Nazis" jokes got old about a year into Bush's first term ...

... and seven years later he still hadn't taken the hint! :-p

Congratulations, you're officially funnier than Yahtzee, at least when it comes to political humor. That was a much better joke than his.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
No, you're not.

You may occasionally wind up in the middle because of the accident of your extreme views leading to the same conclusion as someone who is a moderate, but no: that doesn't make you a moderate anymore than a broken clock is a working clock if you look at it when the time is 12:00

I really am.

I'm pro-gay marriage (Democrat), anti-abortion (Republican), pro-personal responsibility (Republican), anti-discriminatory (both, really), hawk lobby (usually Republican), pro-federal government (Democrat), and incredibly tolerant of people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds (I'd put that as Republican, but I'm sure you wouldn't).

The catch is that I'm very extreme in all of these positions because all of my political stances are born of pure logic, which tends to force me into absolutes. I think homosexuals (and polyamorists, furthermore) deserve all of the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples do. I think that taking any innocent human life is a negative unless you definitively save +1 innocent human lives by doing so and there was no other way to save said lives. I think that every man is by definition only responsible for his own mistakes and failings, and it should never be the onus of another man to pay for them in any way.

This thought pattern is necessary when you try to excise all faith and appeals to emotion from ethics, which I personally feel is the only fair way to go about doing things, since emotion and faith vary from person to person, but logic is immutable.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Pellucid:
You've laid out a lot of unsustainable and insane positions, such as that we shouldn't be allowed to punish serial killers.

Strawman.

It absolutely isn't a strawman. We're talking about logic and the smooth running of society here. YOUR logic would lead to absolute chaos. Mine doesn't. Your system of thought, therefore, has very serious flaws that need to be examined and rectified before we can even begin to consider it as viable.

Dictionaries focus on descriptive definitions

No, dictionaries focus on real definitions. You, on the other hand, focus on make believe ones. Make believe ones that would just happen to re-enforce your position if they had any basis in reality. Which they don't.

And waterboarding doesn't?

Nope. You know we waterboard our own troops to prepare them for the possibility of it happening in the field, right? So either we're scarring every soldier we have for life or it doesn't cause serious psychological trauma.

In other words, you've dug yourself into a hole, so you're going to throw out a few statements you think might cause me trouble before leaving.

Not at all. In fact, if you'd like I'd be happy to continue running circles around you and making you look ridiculous, it's just that I'm not going to get anything but entertainment out of it and you're not going to get anything at all other than perhaps frustration.

Pellucid:
derp derp derp

orrrr instead of adding another link to the chain of hate, you could just not reply?

captainwillies:
orrrr instead of adding another link to the chain of hate, you could just not reply?

I don't hate anybody here. If you do, I see that as your problem.

Pellucid:

captainwillies:
orrrr instead of adding another link to the chain of hate, you could just not reply?

I don't hate anybody here. If you do, I see that as your problem.

woah there. i see your still in "kill mode" after turning my reasonably passive reply into an insult.... actually that was point instead of quoting or replying and there by making more hate, just don't reply. thats what im going to do now :)

off to taekwondo wooooosh.

Pellucid:

The catch is that I'm very extreme in all of these positions because all of my political stances are born of pure logic,

None of those positions are born of pure logic. Logic is like math (it is math, according to some): it can only show you the relationship between things. The value of those things cannot be assigned by math (it can show you positions that necessarily lead to contradictions, but I don't see any of that in what you're talking about).

This thought pattern is necessary when you try to excise all faith and appeals to emotion from ethics, which I personally feel is the only fair way to go about doing things, since emotion and faith vary from person to person, but logic is immutable.

While emotion and faith do vary from person to person, just by calling your emotions and faith "logic" does not make it so. For example:

Pellucid:
I don't have the same faith you do that there's a "right thing" and a "wrong thing" to do that isn't about pure numbers.

Just because you assign value on the basis of "pure numbers" doesn't mean you're not basing that on faith: you're just basing it on a *different* faith, faith that justice is about numbers and not individual rights.

In my mind, the ethical thing to do in every situation is whatever would cause the best end result for the largest possible number of innocent people.

Plenty of people believe that. Problem is, how do you use "logic" to determine who is "innocent"? I mean, that's an argument with a logic LOOP in it: how do you know who is "innocent" or not when it appears your method for determining who is innocent--"the ethical thing to do"--depends upon you knowing who is innocent in the first place?

Finally, how do you use logic to determine the "best end result"? What logical argument do you have for what is 'best'?

If the 10,000 people who will die if you don't torture are like me--people who would rather die than use torture--the "best end result" is one where we all die. If they are like you, vice versa. There's no way to resolve that with logic: you've got to start assigning value.

Pellucid:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Pellucid:
You've laid out a lot of unsustainable and insane positions, such as that we shouldn't be allowed to punish serial killers.

Strawman.

It absolutely isn't a strawman. We're talking about logic and the smooth running of society here. YOUR logic would lead to absolute chaos.

Maybe. But "position that would lead to absolute chaos" =/= "we shouldn't be allowed to punish serial killers" necessarily.

Strawman: substituting an argument that you've made up for the actual argument of your opponent.

It's a strawman. No matter what you THINK of my position, no matter how much you think it belongs to the set of positions that would lead to absolute chaos, arguing against a position I did not TAKE even if it also from the set of positions you think would lead to absolute chaos is a strawman.

Dictionaries focus on descriptive definitions

No, dictionaries focus on real definitions.

1) Did you look up those words? Do you grasp the difference between normative and descriptive?

2) Then use that dictionary of yours to find whatever word does correspond to the concept I'm communicating. Make up a word of your own for my concept if you like. The concept, whatever the word for it may be, is still the same.

3) Stop using dictionaries of general usage and use dictionaries designed for a specialized discussion like this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lawphil-nature/

What is Law? This general question about the nature of law presupposes that law is a unique social-political phenomenon, with more or less universal characteristics that can be discerned through philosophical analysis. General jurisprudence, as this philosophical inquiry about the nature of law is called, is meant to be universal. It assumes that law possesses certain features, and it possesses them by its very nature, or essence, as law, whenever and wherever it happens to exist. However, even if there are such universal characteristics of law, the reasons for a philosophical interest in elucidating them remain to be explained. First, there is the sheer intellectual interest in understanding such a complex social phenomenon which is, after all, one of the most intricate aspects of human culture. Law, however, is also a normative social practice: it purports to guide human behavior, giving rise to reasons for action. An attempt to explain this normative, reason-giving aspect of law is one of the main challenges of general jurisprudence. These two sources of interest in the nature of law are closely linked. Law is not the only normative domain in our culture; morality, religion, social conventions, etiquette, and so on, also guide human conduct in many ways which are similar to law. Therefore, part of what is involved in the understanding of the nature of law consists in an explanation of how law differs from these similar normative domains, how it interacts with them, and whether its intelligibility depends on such other normative orders, like morality or social conventions.

"Rape leaves long-term psychological damage on the victim" And waterboarding doesn't?

Nope.

Until recently, "waterboarding" was something that Americans did to other Americans. It was inflicted, and endured, by those members of the Special Forces who underwent the advanced form of training known as sere (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape).

...

But it's been well said that cowards die many times before their deaths, and it was difficult for me to completely forget the clause in the contract of indemnification that I had signed. This document (written by one who knew) stated revealingly:

"Water boarding" is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional and psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body."

source: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

Cheeze_Pavilion:
None of those positions are born of pure logic. Logic is like math (it is math, according to some): it can only show you the relationship between things. The value of those things cannot be assigned by math (it can show you positions that necessarily lead to contradictions, but I don't see any of that in what you're talking about).
...
Just because you assign value on the basis of "pure numbers" doesn't mean you're not basing that on faith: you're just basing it on a *different* faith, faith that justice is about numbers and not individual rights.

I can assign value to things logically based on the clear purposes of those things from a natural perspective. Life's clear purpose is survival and reproduction. Therefore, it is in the best interest for any organism to produce a situation which will be most conducive to that. Humans are social creatures, and therefore the best situation for them to survive and reproduce is a smoothly-running society, where people feel rewarded for contributing to that society and set upon for detracting from it.

This is all logic. The only tiny leap of faith I made here is to assume that the primary purpose of life is to do the only thing life is actually capable of doing other than ceasing to be.

Plenty of people believe that. Problem is, how do you use "logic" to determine who is "innocent"? I mean, that's an argument with a logic LOOP in it: how do you know who is "innocent" or not when it appears your method for determining who is innocent--"the ethical thing to do"--depends upon you knowing who is innocent in the first place?

There's no loop here. If a person has not been found to be guilty of detracting from the smooth running of society, then they are an innocent; the default assumption is innocence. That is to say, innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the only time it is acceptable to harm someone is if they have already very clearly done harm to an innocent.

You'd be correct that this stance would be unsustainable without the presumption of innocence, but once you add the presumption of innocence it becomes quite simple.

Finally, how do you use logic to determine the "best end result"? What logical argument do you have for what is 'best'?

If action A helps more innocent parties than it harms, action A is acceptable. Also, if it harms a guilty party without harming any innocent parties, it is acceptable.

If the 10,000 people who will die if you don't torture are like me--people who would rather die than use torture--the "best end result" is one where we all die. If they are like you, vice versa. There's no way to resolve that with logic: you've got to start assigning value.

Nonsense. I don't need to care about your personal views in any way to make the ethical decision under my paradigm, which is the entire point of my paradigm. I don't need to know what you personally believe or feel; feelings and faith are irrelevant when it comes to a decision like this. Inconveniencing one guilty party to save ten thousand is an incredibly easy choice to make when you stop obfuscating the issue with faith or feelings.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Maybe. But "position that would lead to absolute chaos" =/= "we shouldn't be allowed to punish serial killers" necessarily.

Strawman: substituting an argument that you've made up for the actual argument of your opponent.

But you actually DID say that we shouldn't be allowed to punish serial killers. I specifically brought up that punishing a serial killer infringes on their right to liberty; their right to do what they want. I assumed you wouldn't object to such an infringement of their liberties. You said you would. Therefore, you object to punishing serial killers.

3) Stop using dictionaries of general usage and use dictionaries designed for a specialized discussion like this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lawphil-nature/

I think it's really hilarious how you mocked my using the dictionary to define words, then you linked me to a site which defined the word I defined the same way I defined it. I really don't think you understood any of those big words in the passage you quoted, because it pretty much said that laws are entirely a facet of society and societal function, which is exactly what I said. If society is a fascist state, then by the definition of law in your passage, the demands of the dictator are the law. When speaking of what is "normative" in law, you're generally speaking of what the law seeks to accomplish. And when you say "legal rights," and then backpedal and try to pretend that such things even exist when you're speaking of normatives it just looks ridiculous on your part. Just admit that you meant "divine rights" (or "inalienable rights" if you're one of those faithophobes) and be done with it.

source: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

Vanity fair: Clearly the most reliable and unbiased source for determining what is and is not torture.

Also, that article is just one man's anecdote. It is in no way a definitive study of the truth of the situation. I mean, some people would be traumatized by being put in jail, but are you going to call lawful imprisonment torture? Sure, a couple of people ever have been traumatized by waterboarding. Somehow, however, I doubt even the man in your article was. It was uncomfortable for him. Very uncomfortable. But he wasn't scarred by a longshot.

Pellucid:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
Maybe. But "position that would lead to absolute chaos" =/= "we shouldn't be allowed to punish serial killers" necessarily.

Strawman: substituting an argument that you've made up for the actual argument of your opponent.

But you actually DID say that we shouldn't be allowed to punish serial killers. I specifically brought up that punishing a serial killer infringes

Cheeze_Pavilion:

I don't hear you clamoring to protect the right to liberty of convicted serial killers.

You didn't ask me, but I do.

There's a difference between seeing some infringement as legitimate, and not protecting something. Infringement is...INFRINGEMENT! Allowing some to be taken away. Not protecting something is allowing ALL of it to be taken away.

I think it's really hilarious how you mocked my using the dictionary to define words, then you linked me to a site which defined the word I defined the same way I defined it.

I never said you were *wrong* that the word law means those things; I only ever said that I was *right* to use in a sense what was NOT one of those things.

For someone who goes on and on about logic, you sure don't demonstrate much ability to identify stuff like this.

Vanity fair: Clearly the most reliable and unbiased source for determining what is and is not torture.

If you've got a better source, share it.

Also, that article is just one man's anecdote. It is in no way a definitive study of the truth of the situation. I mean, some people would be traumatized by being put in jail, but are you going to call lawful imprisonment torture? Sure, a couple of people ever have been traumatized by waterboarding.

1) I see you're moving the goalposts from "long-term psychological damage" to "traumatized"

2) A "couple of people" have NOT suffered "long-term psychological damage" from gang bang ass rape. Therefore, according to your logic, gang bang ass rape STILL continues to not be torture according to you.

3) Let's look at your definition of torture:

--It does permanent damage to the people it is performed on.

--It leaves people scarred

--It does no physical damage to the body at all.

--Whatever it is your believe about "long-term psychological damage"

Notice what is missing? Pain. Your definition of torture leaves open the infliction of any amount of pain as long as none of those four lines are crossed. If we could tap into the nerves and cause direct pain, that would not be torture under your definition.

That's not a very good definition of torture, is it?

Pellucid:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
None of those positions are born of pure logic. Logic is like math (it is math, according to some): it can only show you the relationship between things. The value of those things cannot be assigned by math (it can show you positions that necessarily lead to contradictions, but I don't see any of that in what you're talking about).
...
Just because you assign value on the basis of "pure numbers" doesn't mean you're not basing that on faith: you're just basing it on a *different* faith, faith that justice is about numbers and not individual rights.

I can assign value to things logically based on the clear purposes of those things from a natural perspective.

Yes! THAT is your faith--faith in the natural perspective.

Life's clear purpose is survival and reproduction. Therefore, it is in the best interest for any organism to produce a situation which will be most conducive to that.

No it isn't. If I'm a Christian of a certain belief, it's in my best interest to die sinless and celibate as a martyr. The clear purpose is to do God's will. There is a Christian perspective at odds with the natural perspective.

Finally, how do you use logic to determine the "best end result"? What logical argument do you have for what is 'best'?

If action A helps more innocent parties than it harms, action A is acceptable. Also, if it harms a guilty party without harming any innocent parties, it is acceptable.

According to that logic, it's acceptable for me to steal from a rich man to give to two or more poor men.

It also makes every guilty party an outlaw: it means I can do everything from rob to rape to enslave to murder any guilty party from terrorist to shoplifter.

If the 10,000 people who will die if you don't torture are like me--people who would rather die than use torture--the "best end result" is one where we all die. If they are like you, vice versa. There's no way to resolve that with logic: you've got to start assigning value.

Nonsense. I don't need to care about your personal views in any way to make the ethical decision under my paradigm, I don't need to know what you personally believe or feel; feelings and faith are irrelevant when it comes to a decision like this. Inconveniencing one guilty party to save ten thousand is an incredibly easy choice to make when you stop obfuscating the issue with faith or feelings.

No, you go beyond laws that do not rely on faith or feelings. You're talking about laws that *do not regard faith or feelings as legally relevant*.

So basically, under your laws, the only rights I have are to keep living and reproduce.

--I have no right of free expression: my words might hurt more people than they help

--I have no right of religious freedom: if everyone would have a better chance at living and reproducing should I follow a different religion, I must follow it.

--I have no right of property: I should not keep anything for my one person that could benefit two others

--I have no right of liberty: if I choose to spend my time doing something where if I had spent my time doing something else I would have saved a life, I've done the same thing as if I had gone over and killed that person myself.

Need I go on?

and the epic battle between Cheeze_Pavilion a long time Gone Gonzo and Pellucid the
Copy Clerk continues. who will win? does it matter? is Pellucid ignoring hard evadence? does Cheeze_Pavilion know when to quit? ONLY TIME WILL TELL.

wow at least ps3 got an exclusive title, even if it reminds me of fable

Rego89:
wow at least ps3 got an exclusive title, even if it reminds me of fable

Wait....what?

Its only out on ps3

its a good karma bad karma game

you can use lightning in fable / you can use lightning in infamous

hence it reminds me of fable

Great review!

but he from inFamous what's he's name again... are realy ugly he look worse than the shopkeeper from the game 'revenge of the shopkeeper'

BAM! Off world slavery!

Other than that awesome line, thank you Yahtzee for bringing up the issue of "moral choice" in games.

I agree. Games do need to eventually realize that moral choices should reflect realistic role play and withhold profound narrative consequences. I don't like it when a game has you make choices based on a manecheist gameplay feature that ultimately has you play it twice in order to experience full content.

The Wither pushed some boundaries in this sense as it constantly had the player make choices. Some of them were pretty obvious and shallow, others uncertain (neither good or bad) with effects that could only be identified later on. It wasn't ideal, but it certainly was adequate. In fact the game's tag line was "There is no good or evil. Only choice and consequences.".

We're not there yet, but we've got to try. Grey moral choices, I'll take that into account when developing. Let us hope for the best. :)

And please continue proposing this sort of debate.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
There's a difference between seeing some infringement as legitimate, and not protecting something. Infringement is...INFRINGEMENT! Allowing some to be taken away. Not protecting something is allowing ALL of it to be taken away.

Hey look, more words that Cheeze_Pavilion has unique definitions of that nobody else goes by. If one is protecting a person's right, one would assume that that person's right would not be infringed. Stop making up new definitions to try to retroactively make your arguments make sense. Nobody's buying it except people who want you to be right so desperately that they're willing to completely ignore your egregious errors of logic.

If you've got a better source, share it.

I'm not the one making a positive assertion. It's on you to provide good evidence that waterboarding scars people for life. You're the one asking us to put innocent lives at risk due to the unproven possibility that maybe some really evil people are having long-term psychological damage.

1) I see you're moving the goalposts from "long-term psychological damage" to "traumatized"

I consider those two things to be the same thing, actually.

2) A "couple of people" have NOT suffered "long-term psychological damage" from gang bang ass rape. Therefore, according to your logic, gang bang ass rape STILL continues to not be torture according to you.

You really do have some pretty serious logical disconnects. I stated that waterboarding doesn't cause long-term psychological damage to the overwhelming majority of people who experience it, i.e. the entire United States Armed Forces. Not "if one person doesn't experience trauma, it's OK." In fact, I said the exact opposite: "if MOST people DO experience trauma, it's NOT OK." Somehow you managed to take what I said, hear the exact opposite, and then conclude that I was wrong. Therefore, if you think that the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I said was wrong, then you must think I'm right.

Notice what is missing? Pain. Your definition of torture leaves open the infliction of any amount of pain as long as none of those four lines are crossed. If we could tap into the nerves and cause direct pain, that would not be torture under your definition.

I would feel massive pain at being imprisoned, as I have a fear of confinement. Does that mean that imprisoning me counts as torture and that therefore I should not be allowed to be imprisoned?

Pain is fleeting. It's there and then it's gone. If inflicting momentary pain on an evil man saves the life of a good man, then it's OK by me.

No it isn't. If I'm a Christian of a certain belief, it's in my best interest to die sinless and celibate as a martyr. The clear purpose is to do God's will. There is a Christian perspective at odds with the natural perspective.

Except you're basing your position in an incredible leap of faith. I'm basing my position on millions of years of evidence.

According to that logic, it's acceptable for me to steal from a rich man to give to two or more poor men.

Not at all. That would set a precedent that theft was acceptable, and would ultimately hurt everyone severely. You can't just look at the immediate consequences of an action, you have to look at the long-term consequences.

It also makes every guilty party an outlaw: it means I can do everything from rob to rape to enslave to murder any guilty party from terrorist to shoplifter.

Ideally, such a situation would cause nobody to want to be a guilty party. Additionally, doing undue harm to a guilty party harms innocent parties who are associated with the guilty party, so if you enslave a shoplifter, his friends are going to be harmed rather severely with emotional distress, and therefore that action is unacceptable.

So basically, under your laws, the only rights I have are to keep living and reproduce.

--I have no right of free expression: my words might hurt more people than they help

You have no right to free expression as it stands. Hate speech is outlawed. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. We've already banned forms of speech that clearly hurt more people than they help. There would be almost no alteration from the current system.

--I have no right of religious freedom: if everyone would have a better chance at living and reproducing should I follow a different religion, I must follow it.

Nonsense. If someone tried to force you to follow a specific religion, you would become resentful and discontent, which would harm society. Again, the current philosophy of free religion already follows my maxim. There would be almost no change.

--I have no right of property: I should not keep anything for my one person that could benefit two others

False. Society needs to feel that hard work is rewarded in order to function smoothly. It is imperative that everyone be allowed to keep what they earn. The only change from the current system would be that you'd have more of a right to your own property than you do now, thanks to the existence of entitlement programs like Social Security and Welfare being altered to use individual accounts or eliminated.

--I have no right of liberty: if I choose to spend my time doing something where if I had spent my time doing something else I would have saved a life, I've done the same thing as if I had gone over and killed that person myself.

Only if that action saved the most possible lives. If we don't have people doing the mundane jobs of the world, the world would collapse and billions would die. If you don't spend some time relaxing after working, you'll become stressed and inefficient. If everyone becomes stressed, it will cause massive civil unrest.

You seem to be incapable of looking past the immediate consequences of an action. Until you can, you are incapable of understanding my philosophy.

lesterley:

But I suspect that much of his smart, irreverent humor is completely lost on the majority of his younger viewers.

lol
about as smart and irreverent as a family guy joke

Pellucid:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
There's a difference between seeing some infringement as legitimate, and not protecting something. Infringement is...INFRINGEMENT! Allowing some to be taken away. Not protecting something is allowing ALL of it to be taken away.

Hey look, more words that Cheeze_Pavilion has unique definitions of that nobody else goes by. If one is protecting a person's right, one would assume that that person's right would not be infringed.

Not in a conversation where someone proposes that the guilty have no rights!

If you've got a better source, share it.

I'm not the one making a positive assertion.

Unless you're making the assertion that waterboarding does not exist, we're both making positive assertions. Mutually exclusive assertions one of which must be true, but still: both are positive assertions.

1) I see you're moving the goalposts from "long-term psychological damage" to "traumatized"

I consider those two things to be the same thing, actually.

And you accuse me of playing around with words...

I stated that waterboarding doesn't cause long-term psychological damage to the overwhelming majority of people who experience it, i.e. the entire United States Armed Forces. Not "if one person doesn't experience trauma, it's OK." In fact, I said the exact opposite: "if MOST people DO experience trauma, it's NOT OK."

No, you said that something has to cause trauma to ALL people:

Pellucid:
You know we waterboard our own troops to prepare them for the possibility of it happening in the field, right? So either we're scarring every soldier we have for life or it doesn't cause serious psychological trauma.

Notice what is missing? Pain. Your definition of torture leaves open the infliction of any amount of pain as long as none of those four lines are crossed. If we could tap into the nerves and cause direct pain, that would not be torture under your definition.

I would feel massive pain at being imprisoned, as I have a fear of confinement.

Physical pain.

You do realize you're the *worst* kind of thinker? Even worse than the ones who are NOT logical? See, you use logic as a rhetorical weapon--you use it to find any gap in your opponent's argument *whether that gap represents a flaw in their argument or not* and try to exploit it. You clearly knew I was talking about physical pain, yet you strung the argument out just to make me say "physical pain" even after the context made it clear what I was talking about.

It's people like you that give people like me a bad name. Please stop using words like "logic" to describe your methods: you're slandering by association those of us who use logic to try and find truth as opposed to trying to appear victorious in arguments.

Pain is fleeting. It's there and then it's gone. If inflicting momentary pain on an evil man saves the life of a good man, then it's OK by me.

So you ARE in favor of torture.

No it isn't. If I'm a Christian of a certain belief, it's in my best interest to die sinless and celibate as a martyr. The clear purpose is to do God's will. There is a Christian perspective at odds with the natural perspective.

Except you're basing your position in an incredible leap of faith. I'm basing my position on millions of years of evidence.

Like I said: your stance is not based on pure logic. It is based on you assigning more weight to millions of years of evidence than to a book of evidence called the Bible. You can't assign value using pure logic.

According to that logic, it's acceptable for me to steal from a rich man to give to two or more poor men.

Not at all. That would set a precedent that theft was acceptable, and would ultimately hurt everyone severely.

And torturing people would set a precedent that violations of civil rights are acceptable, and would ultimately hurt everyone severely.

You can't just look at the immediate consequences of an action, you have to look at the long-term consequences.

Exactly my point! Now you're getting it!

It also makes every guilty party an outlaw: it means I can do everything from rob to rape to enslave to murder any guilty party from terrorist to shoplifter.

Ideally, such a situation would cause nobody to want to be a guilty party. Additionally, doing undue harm to a guilty party harms innocent parties who are associated with the guilty party, so if you enslave a shoplifter, his friends are going to be harmed rather severely with emotional distress, and therefore that action is unacceptable.

So it means I can do everything from rob to rape to enslave to murder any guilty party from terrorist to shoplifter *as long as they have no friends or their friends won't experience more emotional distress than I'll experience emotional joy*

So basically, under your laws, the only rights I have are to keep living and reproduce.

--I have no right of free expression: my words might hurt more people than they help

You have no right to free expression as it stands. Hate speech is outlawed. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. We've already banned forms of speech that clearly hurt more people than they help.

I do not remember there being a gag order on every other sentence out of Sarah Palin's mouth. When there is, we can even then only begin to talk about whether you're right. As long as she's allowed to go around stirring up the populace, you're wrong.

--I have no right of religious freedom: if everyone would have a better chance at living and reproducing should I follow a different religion, I must follow it.

Nonsense. If someone tried to force you to follow a specific religion, you would become resentful and discontent, which would harm society.

So I have no right of religious freedom if forcing me to take up another religion will make me become so resentful and discontent that I harm society.

The more of an intolerant zealot you are, the more freedom of religion you have. Yeah, I can't see THAT not leading to anything bad...

--I have no right of property: I should not keep anything for my one person that could benefit two others

False. Society needs to feel that hard work is rewarded in order to function smoothly. It is imperative that everyone be allowed to keep what they earn.

No, the imperative is for wealth to be distributed such that society functions as smoothly as possible. Need is the coin of your realm: whoever disrupts society the most gets the most.

...and I thought the looters in _Atlas Shrugged_ were caricatures, incapable of being found out in the real world!

The only change from the current system would be that you'd have more of a right to your own property than you do now, thanks to the existence of entitlement programs like Social Security and Welfare being altered to use individual accounts or eliminated.

What? Those programs keep society functions MUCH more smoothly than one with out them. They'd be doubled under your ideology, let alone eliminated.

--I have no right of liberty: if I choose to spend my time doing something where if I had spent my time doing something else I would have saved a life, I've done the same thing as if I had gone over and killed that person myself.

Only if that action saved the most possible lives. If we don't have people doing the mundane jobs of the world, the world would collapse and billions would die. If you don't spend some time relaxing after working, you'll become stressed and inefficient. If everyone becomes stressed, it will cause massive civil unrest.

I only have the liberty to spend my time relaxing if I can show that I will become stressed and inefficient if I do not. Any minute of my day that I can spend working for the betterment of society without getting stressed and inefficient, I must spend that time working.

Wow, I didn't think it was possible for you to MORE precisely present Rand's caricatures of the looters as your ideology with that part about property, but now this part about work, where the stronger you are the longer you have to work, where the less capable of working you are the more of your life you get to spend relaxing?

Oh yes, clearly Sarah Palin is guilty of hate speech. You're completely off your rocker. Do you realize you just accused me of being "too logical?" And that you're implying that Sarah Palin is a domestic terrorist "stirring up" the populace?

Also, if only physical pain counts as torture, then waterboarding isn't torture because it doesn't actually cause physical pain, just psychological pain; it makes you believe that you are drowning even though you are not. So now that you've invalidated your own argument about seventeen different ways and put words in my mouth that were never there about nineteen different ways, are you ready to throw in the towel yet? This conversation has ceased to be entertaining.

Pellucid:
derp derp derp

seriously dude as a third party it looks like your just getting more and more arrogant. Cheeze_Pavilion is right; all your doing is finding gaps in the argument and using your "own logic" to see how long you can stretch this thread out.

the truth:
You do realize you're the *worst* kind of thinker? Even worse than the ones who are NOT logical? See, you use logic as a rhetorical weapon--you use it to find any gap in your opponent's argument *whether that gap represents a flaw in their argument or not* and try to exploit it.

It's people like you that give people like me a bad name. Please stop using words like "logic" to describe your methods: you're slandering by association those of us who use logic to try and find truth as opposed to trying to appear victorious in arguments.

Pellucid:
Oh yes, clearly Sarah Palin is guilty of hate speech.

Again, strawman.

"hate speech" =/= all "forms of speech that clearly hurt more people than they help" necessarily.

You're completely off your rocker. Do you realize you just accused me of being "too logical?"

We're running out of straw.

accusing you of using logic for purposes of generating rhetoric of no logical use to figuring out the issue =/= accusing you of being "too logical."

MISuse =/= OVERuse necessarily.

And that you're implying that Sarah Palin is a domestic terrorist "stirring up" the populace?

You're the one calling her a domestic terrorist; I did no such thing. I just said that speeches of hers are "stirring up the populace" in a way that they "clearly hurt more people than they help" and that they are protected under current civil rights law.

Also, if only physical pain counts as torture,

I did not say that. It's *sufficient* if done "for any purpose beyond stopping physical resistance to custody with no more force than required," I never said it was a *necessary* element.

This is the other reason you should stop calling yourself "logical": if you can't grasp something so basic as the difference between sufficient and necessary, well, you're just giving the rest of us a bad name.

then waterboarding isn't torture because it doesn't actually cause physical pain, just psychological pain;

That is 100% wrong You are experiencing the physical pain of not being able to get enough air. Your body starts trying to get you to inhale by putting you in pain, just like it puts you in pain to get you to move away from a fire.

Saying that waterboarding inflicts no physical pain because it only 'simulates drowning' is like saying that filling someone's mouth full of pepper spray inflicts no physical pain because it only 'simulates being on fire'.

waterboarding, pepper spray, the Bene Gesserit box, the agony that is sometimes part of phantom limb syndrome: they all inflict PHYSICAL PAIN!

are you ready to throw in the towel yet?

Not even a wet one on someone's face.

I was shocked that he liked it somewhat at least from what I gathered seeing as most people seem to hate the game. I think it's pretty good even if it is just a shooter that replaces guns with electricity and it is but if you really get bored with that set it to easy and screw around for awhile using melee attacks.

Also if your looking for a good new brawler superpower game try prototype.

Dunno if you really check this stuff Yahtzee, but you should definitely check out Prototype. From what you said about Infamous I have a feeling you'd simply ADORE Prototype. That, and I'd love to hear whatever comments you could come up with.

dam you have found mine plan for world domination (ath the end with the evil guy)

I like Halo 3 and he called it bland. >_>

Ok ok you 2, Peluucid and...... Cheese pavillion? (wtf does that mean?!) You're both extremely flawed Critical thinkers and arguers. You're both just dishing out your own code of morality as actual truth and basing your srguments on what you believe (which you thinly veil as "logic") not what is fact. And there is a very simple reason for this. You can't win or lose an argument based on faith and beliefs because there is NEVER (and I mean never, even in the case of fascist dictators) a way of determining what is "truth" or "the course of right" because they are just that, beliefs. Stop trying to convince the other person; you have totally confilcting ideaologies.

And of course you are both insulting the others ability to argue which is ridiculous. If you still want to vainly convert the other at least stick to legitimate arguments, and not resort to infantile insults. Douchebags. (and yes I'm fully aware of that irony please DONT correct me as you seem to do so adamantly to each other).

I am basically dismayed at what I have read. You two keep using fancy words completely out of context just to look impressive and it looks ridiculous. Write what you mean in plain, unconvoluted english and stop looking words up in the dictionary when a simpler word would quite happily suffice.

What you are debating is what has been debated for centuries or more by the world's most talented philosophers. You are not going to sort it out here on a gaming forum of all places, when you are quite clearly both not the worlds most talented philosophers.

You are both right if its what you believe. Accept the other person is too. There is no answer. Find something more worthwhile to do with your time like joining a debating club if you love it so much (although from what I've read on here you'd probs not be too popular with your silly fraudulent logic).

I'll try and sum it up in a sentence: You are both lost in a maze of morale relativism
Love it :D

Have that mofos :P and think carefully about what you are writing and don't fall into the trap that so many debaters have done in recent years, and which is why there are so few brilliant philosophical minds left.

p.s. there is dedicated political discussion forums just for this so check them out. Leave simple gamers in peace free from rambling wannabe philosophers.

Stig_Marshall:
Cheese pavillion? (wtf does that mean?!)

It means your music collection sucks.

You're both just dishing out your own code of morality as actual truth and basing your srguments on what you believe (which you thinly veil as "logic") not what is fact.

That's funny: I thought I was showing him how even if for the sake of argument I base my arguments on what he believes, that we still wind up with results that are unpalatable to both of us.

Write what you mean in plain, unconvoluted english and stop looking words up in the dictionary when a simpler word would quite happily suffice.

Mind suggesting them then? Mind pointing out what words I used could be replaced by simpler ones?

What you are debating is what has been debated for centuries or more by the world's most talented philosophers. You are not going to sort it out here on a gaming forum of all places, when you are quite clearly both not the worlds most talented philosophers.

Considering you can't tell the difference between me trying to convince someone else of "totally confilcting ideaologies" that they are wrong by arguing for my own ideology, and me trying to show the other person how their ideology doesn't lead to accomplishing the goals they think it will lead to, I hope you understand why I don't consider your opinion on the quality of someone's philosophical argument of much value.

p.s. there is dedicated political discussion forums just for this so check them out. Leave simple gamers in peace free from rambling wannabe philosophers.

Hmm, silly me, thinking because I've been on here two years longer than you having political discussions with people who run this site that might indicate that this was the place for these kind of discussions.

I'm so glad you came along two months ago to enlighten us on how we've been misusing this forum for the two years before you showed up. What would we ever have done without you?

"BAM Offworld slavery!" will stay with me forever.

alot of people have told me the game is very good, but a game of 2 extremes being good or evil with no grey area as ZP said i mean, why is like, power an orphanage or zap a box of kittens? why cant it be a 3rd option of zap the box of kittens to power the orphanage? yes, kittens are an alternate power source.

the only game ive seen that does the karma system right is fallout, you can be all nicey nice to someone, then as soon as theyrebacks turned mini nuke the snot out of his town, not quite a karmic balance but you get the point

I gotsta agreez with Stig_Martial. I see a lot of appeals to reason and logic but they seem to then be subsequently tied into semantics and personal morality.

Case in point, Pellucid : It is not necessarily life's "purpose" to survive. Observing the apparent chemical behavior of life on earth and determining that because it does a very good job of surviving, then that makes survival life's "purpose" is frivolous, not logical, since you have no evidence or rational basis for applying purpose to the behavior. Were we to embrace this kind of "reason" then any pyromaniac could make the same argument. "But fire's purpose is to rapidly expand and burn everything it can. Its only logical that I tailor my behavior to promote it!"

Obviously this is just a cherry picked example of a rampant behavior.

Vendor Xeno:
I gotsta agreez with Stig_Martial. I see a lot of appeals to reason and logic but they seem to then be subsequently tied into semantics and personal morality.

I think it is neither semantics nor personal morality to hold there is a difference worth keeping in mind between the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of a dictator using force or the threat of it to get the majority to rubber stamp his actions.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
I think it is neither semantics nor personal morality to hold there is a difference worth keeping in mind between the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of a dictator using force or the threat of it to get the majority to rubber stamp his actions.

Mm. That was a good point. (...shame you sort of have to think about it for a while to understand it, I suppose, but).

I see where Stig is coming from, though. I'm not sure what actually causes it (except maybe too much focus on creating intellectuals instead of learning people to think, or something like that.. totally random thought), but very often you get long logical pieces of reasoning that essentially will presuppose a point of view, and simply use the analysis to plug it. With no regard for anything else, or any shortcuts that might've happened on the way.

So instead of reasoning up till a point, and then either saying: ..and this is why I think that.. Or: given that this is true, then... - something that would encourage discussion, and leave an opening for improvement of the analysis, or a change of opinion - people instead say: And that's why X is undisputably true, the "facts" speak for themselves, it is logical, etc..

It pains me to say it, but this is something that gives the "right"(for lack of a better term) a very valid point when they insist that successful ideology is simply a matter of arguing for what you already believe in with conviction. In the sense that the "left" will find one set of truths, and the right will find another - and to promote the point of view, the idea is simply to indoctrinate people with views agreeable to your own, and exclude poisonous trickery from the witches, evil people, and so on.

In other words the truth is purely subjective, because it only depends on conviction alone, no matter what the issue is. I think an american phil... *wave*.. thinker..*cough* called Richard Rorty had several unintended strokes of genius when explaining how he believes philosophy is an ongoing debate over what the best words are in any given situation - and that the winning candidate is simply whoever can use language to get what they want. In another circumstance he would explain such things that the method used to teach at schools is no different from the one used in a church, for example - in that the lef are indoctrinating people to become reasonably tolerant, thinking beings with particular types of beliefs and convictions. Just like the other ones.

Which of course makes sense in that context - the only purpose is to get your way, whatever it is for whatever reason, and so there is no fundamental difference between a logic and belief. They are, or so he explains, simply two systems of belief. End of discussion, as they say.

Of course, the irony here is that what he's describing is - while a very interesting philosophical question that might actually lead somewhere if he did some, any, work on it - is the actual context of a real life scenario. Where a large amount of people are convinced that logic or deliberate and open reasoning, done for the purpose of inviting debate and creating conscious choices, is simply is a sham.

But it's my "belief" that this would be less of a popular point of view if people were better educated. My belief, mind you.

----

Uh... anyway. Back to playing inFamous. I'm going to get to the top of the junk- pile in the Warrens today :D

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here