Rewrite Lt Harris's arc redside so it's not so offensive

[SwitchFade]

Correct, I used the term everyone in quotes, as an antonym for "only people who" as I am not necessarily opposed to the change, but I vote no because the argument used to justify the change is logical fallacy. You said that only those opposed to the change use the argument of slippery slope. The OP relies heavily on slippery slope, and I stated that, and I'm not opposed to change. So, I said you don't speak for everyone that states the point. Me.

 

<stuff I can't interpret>

 

My no vote is based not on change, but on the flawed argument for this specific change.

 

Except that you do oppose the change, regardless of the reasons...

 

My vernacular is simply the way I speak, and write.

 

I'm assuming, like most people, you are able to alter your speech as needed depending on your audience.  Perhaps I am wrong, but if I am not, please rephrase everything you said after this, and please include a quote from the OP that supports your slippery slope?

 

Ok, I'll retype the same thing. I am not opposed to a change or this one. I am opposed to illogic and fallacy. Change based on illogic highlights that the change from null state is neither reasonable, or good. To be clear, to oppose a change I must consider it. I haven't even made it to consider, because the arguement IS flawed. No consideration, a no vote on the flawed argement.

 

So, your statement is false.

[Rylas]

I mean I'm not for change for the sake of change, but I'm also not opposed to trying new things just because they are different. 

 

I think we share the same view here, but just happen to slightly diverge on this particular example. I'm certainly not opposed to different. My line of work requires being creative and different. And hey, I bet an even better story could be written. I'm just a stickler for reason. Hell, I wouldn't doubt a better reason for changing this story could be crafted. And if OP presented it, I'd jump on board.

 

For whatever that's worth.

[justicebeliever]

Correct, I used the term everyone in quotes, as an antonym for "only people who" as I am not necessarily opposed to the change, but I vote no because the argument used to justify the change is logical fallacy. You said that only those opposed to the change use the argument of slippery slope. The OP relies heavily on slippery slope, and I stated that, and I'm not opposed to change. So, I said you don't speak for everyone that states the point. Me.

 

<stuff I can't interpret>

 

My no vote is based not on change, but on the flawed argument for this specific change.

 

Except that you do oppose the change, regardless of the reasons...

 

My vernacular is simply the way I speak, and write.

 

I'm assuming, like most people, you are able to alter your speech as needed depending on your audience.  Perhaps I am wrong, but if I am not, please rephrase everything you said after this, and please include a quote from the OP that supports your slippery slope?

 

Ok, I'll retype the same thing. I am not opposed to a change or this one. I am opposed to illogic and fallacy. Change based on illogic highlights that the change from null state is neither reasonable, or good.

 

So, your statement is false.

 

I've asked twice for more context and both times you've just repeated yourself.  This is the 2nd time you've done this to me in a thread where I've asked you to provide more information, but have been unwilling to (or more likely, incapable of) engage in a more productive conversation...This is not an argument, it's trolling at it's most basic level...

 

So that's fine...we are done...please respond as you like...I won't be responding to anything you say going forward...

[GamerKate]

Thank you for making this post @MrCaptainMan! I had the same thoughts when I played this mission. It made me severely uncomfortable. There's a bunch of this kind of weird gender content in the game, but I think you've usefully identified the strongest details that make this particular mission something that stands out as reinforcing misogyny instead of merely depicting it.

 

- The objective reference to Lt Page as 'girlfriend'

- The player taking part in the murder of a woman for rejecting a man

- The player being given the option to agree that this was right

 

So you are fine with just "killing people" for fun, but "killing a female" because a psycho can't handle rejection is too much?

 

Every time a villain character goes about a mission that results in the death of innocents that are accepting that as "right".  Period.

Rather than looking at the characters as having an option to agree that this was right, what should stand out here is that they have an option to decide that the mission was wrong.

 

"Hey villain, I need you to go here and kill these guys for not paying their protection".  A few minutes later they are all dead, you are getting rewarded, and the contact is pointing you towards your next victim.

 

Here, in this case, you get to say "No.  That was wrong, and while I did the larger mission in service to Arachnos/Lord Recluse, what you asked of me was wrong, and now you will pay for that".

 

That is not a common occurrence.

 

This is a valid point. I still think that Page (And social justice lol) would be better served by an alternative reaction from Harris, but you’re right about highlighting the player’s choice to not agree with Harris’s actions.

 

MCM

[SwitchFade]

Correct, I used the term everyone in quotes, as an antonym for "only people who" as I am not necessarily opposed to the change, but I vote no because the argument used to justify the change is logical fallacy. You said that only those opposed to the change use the argument of slippery slope. The OP relies heavily on slippery slope, and I stated that, and I'm not opposed to change. So, I said you don't speak for everyone that states the point. Me.

 

<stuff I can't interpret>

 

My no vote is based not on change, but on the flawed argument for this specific change.

 

Except that you do oppose the change, regardless of the reasons...

 

My vernacular is simply the way I speak, and write.

 

I'm assuming, like most people, you are able to alter your speech as needed depending on your audience.  Perhaps I am wrong, but if I am not, please rephrase everything you said after this, and please include a quote from the OP that supports your slippery slope?

 

Ok, I'll retype the same thing. I am not opposed to a change or this one. I am opposed to illogic and fallacy. Change based on illogic highlights that the change from null state is neither reasonable, or good.

 

So, your statement is false.

 

I've asked twice for more context and both times you've just repeated yourself.  This is the 2nd time you've done this to me in a thread where I've asked you to provide more information, but have been unwilling to (or more likely, incapable of) engage in a more productive conversation...This is not an argument, it's trolling at it's most basic level...

 

So that's fine...we are done...please respond as you like...I won't be responding to anything you say going forward...

 

Thanks for insulting me. I restated it again because English is English, and it's clear.

 

You made a statement about people who see slippery slope. That statement included me and was wrong. You then said I oppose change. Which is also wrong. So, you are wrong when you try and speak for me.

 

You do not speak for me. I said that. I told you why. I said I will not consider the change if it is initiated with FLAWED LOGIC.

 

Now you insult me. Thank you. This is what is known as appeals to emotion in an argument that have no factual basis, in an attempt to win an argument. You cannot bait me emotionally into mud slinging.

 

I will reiterate, your opinion is valid. The OP's OPINION is valid.

 

Your statements of fact are false, WHERE THEY CONCERN ME.

 

My opinion is valid. Please be more respectful and don't insult people.

[GamerKate]

No one, and I mean no one, except those who oppose this change are making this suggesting.  It's fear-mongering, and it has no basis in reality.

 

And...so what?  What if someone rewrote every single story line that has also been cited by those opposed to change.  Are you suggesting that the existing story lines absolutely cannot be improved on?  I'm really unclear here on what it is you are defending?  Are you afraid that all of CoV will get reduced to storylines about people who fail to spay or neuter their pets?

 

This is patently false because you do not speak for me. And I'm part of "everyone."

 

<SNIP - overly wordy and not constructive>

 

In essence, while I see the OP has an opinion, so do others. Both are valid. Each vote has merit.

 

Opinions are not facts. Fallacy of logic is not syllogistic reasoning.

 

1.) Never used the word "everyone".  I said the only people who are suggesting that future content would be changed are those opposed to the change.  It's not a line of reasoning, it's a fact. 

2.) The OP never made any such argument...Maybe you want to use the quote feature and help me out

3.) This is all opinion.  Except for the FACT that the only people bringing up changing additional content are people who are opposed to the change.  However opinions lead to actions (hence a suggestion board), and actions have consequences.  So we get to debate consequences here...

 

Much of your wording is over my head, which I believe you intended, rather than stay on topic.  But if not, please rephrase your points so that the lay person might have a better understanding?

 

Correct, I used the term everyone in quotes, as an antonym for "only people who" as I am not necessarily opposed to the change, but I vote no because the argument used to justify the change is logical fallacy. You said that only those opposed to the change use the argument of slippery slope. The OP relies heavily on slippery slope, and I stated that, and I'm not opposed to change. So, I said you don't speak for everyone that states the point. Me.

 

My vernacular is simply the way I speak, and write.

 

The OP's entire argument is slippery slope, hence, I cannot value the argument where is lacks syllogism. Should the OP do more research, and present a case for change that is syllogistic, I may then be persuaded.

 

Until then, I say no change because logical fallacy invalidates the case for change. Logical reasoning would persuade me. My no vote is based not on change, but on the flawed argument for this specific change.

 

Could you expand on why you think I used slippery slope reasoning in my OP? I have not asked for any changes to be made to any other arc etc.

 

MCM

[SwitchFade]

No one, and I mean no one, except those who oppose this change are making this suggesting.  It's fear-mongering, and it has no basis in reality.

 

And...so what?  What if someone rewrote every single story line that has also been cited by those opposed to change.  Are you suggesting that the existing story lines absolutely cannot be improved on?  I'm really unclear here on what it is you are defending?  Are you afraid that all of CoV will get reduced to storylines about people who fail to spay or neuter their pets?

 

This is patently false because you do not speak for me. And I'm part of "everyone."

 

<SNIP - overly wordy and not constructive>

 

In essence, while I see the OP has an opinion, so do others. Both are valid. Each vote has merit.

 

Opinions are not facts. Fallacy of logic is not syllogistic reasoning.

 

1.) Never used the word "everyone".  I said the only people who are suggesting that future content would be changed are those opposed to the change.  It's not a line of reasoning, it's a fact. 

2.) The OP never made any such argument...Maybe you want to use the quote feature and help me out

3.) This is all opinion.  Except for the FACT that the only people bringing up changing additional content are people who are opposed to the change.  However opinions lead to actions (hence a suggestion board), and actions have consequences.  So we get to debate consequences here...

 

Much of your wording is over my head, which I believe you intended, rather than stay on topic.  But if not, please rephrase your points so that the lay person might have a better understanding?

 

Correct, I used the term everyone in quotes, as an antonym for "only people who" as I am not necessarily opposed to the change, but I vote no because the argument used to justify the change is logical fallacy. You said that only those opposed to the change use the argument of slippery slope. The OP relies heavily on slippery slope, and I stated that, and I'm not opposed to change. So, I said you don't speak for everyone that states the point. Me.

 

My vernacular is simply the way I speak, and write.

 

The OP's entire argument is slippery slope, hence, I cannot value the argument where is lacks syllogism. Should the OP do more research, and present a case for change that is syllogistic, I may then be persuaded.

 

Until then, I say no change because logical fallacy invalidates the case for change. Logical reasoning would persuade me. My no vote is based not on change, but on the flawed argument for this specific change.

 

Could you expand on why you think I used slippery slope reasoning in my OP? I have not asked for any changes to be made to any other arc etc.

 

MCM

 

Sure, I would be happy to simply expand on what I see, as an opinion only. May I execute this in perhaps an hour or so? I am on my mobile and it is very time consuming to cut and paste from said mobile.

[justicebeliever]

Thanks for insulting me. I restated it again because English is English, and it's clear.

 

You made a statement about people who see slippery slope. That statement included me and was wrong. You then said I oppose change. Which is also wrong. So, you are wrong when you try and speak for me.

 

You do not speak for me. I said that. I told you why. I said I will not consider the change if it is initiated with FLAWED LOGIC.

 

Now you insult me. Thank you. This is what is known as appeals to emotion in an argument that have no factual basis, in an attempt to win an argument. You cannot bait me emotionally into mud slinging.

 

I will reiterate, your opinion is valid. The OP's OPINION is valid.

 

Your statements of fact are false, WHERE THEY CONCERN ME.

 

My opinion is valid. Please be more respectful and don't insult people.

 

I'm going to apologize for being insulting.  I clearly was, and I'm going take this response as an attempt to reproach it.

 

1.) You said you oppose the change...Please pick a side...You are for the change?  Your are against the change?  It's confusing and impossible to engage if you are saying

You then said I oppose change. Which is also wrong.

but then say

Until then, I say no change

 

2.) English is English, but your use of terminology and jargon is not clear to me.  So I'm assuming you know what you are talking about, but please don't insult me by saying that it's clear.  It clearly isn't to me (that's why I have asked you to rephrase), and English is my first language, and I do have a college degree from an accredited US university.

 

3.) I'll exclude you from this statement, since I clearly have no idea where you stand...But the only people I have seen, that I can understand what they are saying, that have suggested a slippery slope, are people opposed to the change. 

 

4.) In attempting to understand your viewpoint, I asked you to a.) rephrase and b.) provide a quote from the OP support slippery slope.  You've responded each time I've asked, by repeating what you've already said.  If it wasn't clear to me the first time, it won't be clear to me no matter how many times you say it the same way over and over again.

 

So where are we at?

 

I would truly, like to understand your viewpoint.  I've asked twice as such.

 

If you truly, want me to understand your viewpoint (this is your choice, not mine), then please respond with different words (pretend I am a high schooler with no background in philosophy) to explain your viewpoint.  If you are going to call out the OP, that's fine, but please use quotes to do so, so we can all follow your reasoning.

 

Like I said, this is the 2nd thread we've engaged in where I've asked for more information, and you've left me hanging...It's fine if you don't want to engage me...Then please don't respond to the comments I make.  If you do want to engage, you'll have to pull me up to your level, but you won't do that with jargon.

 

You've asked for time before responding...that's fine...If you aren't in a good position to engage fully than just wait until you are.  I know mobile devices are CRAP for long threads like this in this particular forum.

[Leogunner]

Stuff

 

Oh, hey, Leo. Because of our discussion I went ahead and looked at page 60+ of his Manifesto. At 17 he was still spending a week with his dad and a week with his mom, alternating between the two. He says at 18, and I'm gonna quote, here, 'cause it's just -so- hilarious with your rejection of the premise of the impact of media:

 

"At father's house, we watched the movie Alpha Dog after dinner one night. This movie depicts a lot of teenagers and young people partying and having sex with beautiful girls, living the life that I've desired for so long. The main character is a fifteen year old kid who has sex with two hot girls in a swimming pool. I was so envious that I delighted at his death in the end. I remember thinking that I would rather live his life than mine, even though he died. He had sex and I didn't. The movie deeply affected me, emotionally, and I would think about it for some time afterwards."

 

Media. Has. Impact. It shapes people's perspectives by creating a culture of shared values. Not all of those values are good.

 

HAHAHA! I honestly didn't realize toy were so staunchly advocating censorship. I assumed it was just an observation.

 

No, no. Your example doesn't support what you think. I'm sorry, but if all you're trying to prove that media affects us, that is obvious that we already know happens. Attempting to link media and actions is not going to be proven using a hedge case like Elliot Rodgers, however.

[jack_nomind]

Y'all, left field was six exits ago on our right.  I think we're lost.

[SwitchFade]

Thanks for insulting me. I restated it again because English is English, and it's clear.

 

You made a statement about people who see slippery slope. That statement included me and was wrong. You then said I oppose change. Which is also wrong. So, you are wrong when you try and speak for me.

 

You do not speak for me. I said that. I told you why. I said I will not consider the change if it is initiated with FLAWED LOGIC.

 

Now you insult me. Thank you. This is what is known as appeals to emotion in an argument that have no factual basis, in an attempt to win an argument. You cannot bait me emotionally into mud slinging.

 

I will reiterate, your opinion is valid. The OP's OPINION is valid.

 

Your statements of fact are false, WHERE THEY CONCERN ME.

 

My opinion is valid. Please be more respectful and don't insult people.

 

I'm going to apologize for being insulting.  I clearly was, and I'm going take this response as an attempt to reproach it.

 

1.) You said you oppose the change...Please pick a side...You are for the change?  Your are against the change?  It's confusing and impossible to engage if you are saying

You then said I oppose change. Which is also wrong.

but then say

Until then, I say no change

 

2.) English is English, but your use of terminology and jargon is not clear to me.  So I'm assuming you know what you are talking about, but please don't insult me by saying that it's clear.  It clearly isn't to me (that's why I have asked you to rephrase), and English is my first language, and I do have a college degree from an accredited US university.

 

3.) I'll exclude you from this statement, since I clearly have no idea where you stand...But the only people I have seen, that I can understand what they are saying, that have suggested a slippery slope, are people opposed to the change. 

 

4.) In attempting to understand your viewpoint, I asked you to a.) rephrase and b.) provide a quote from the OP support slippery slope.  You've responded each time I've asked, by repeating what you've already said.  If it wasn't clear to me the first time, it won't be clear to me no matter how many times you say it the same way over and over again.

 

So where are we at?

 

I would truly, like to understand your viewpoint.  I've asked twice as such.

 

If you truly, want me to understand your viewpoint (this is your choice, not mine), then please respond with different words (pretend I am a high schooler with no background in philosophy) to explain your viewpoint.  If you are going to call out the OP, that's fine, but please use quotes to do so, so we can all follow your reasoning.

 

Like I said, this is the 2nd thread we've engaged in where I've asked for more information, and you've left me hanging...It's fine if you don't want to engage me...Then please don't respond to the comments I make.  If you do want to engage, you'll have to pull me up to your level, but you won't do that with jargon.

 

You've asked for time before responding...that's fine...If you aren't in a good position to engage fully than just wait until you are.  I know mobile devices are CRAP for long threads like this in this particular forum.

 

Cut and paste is tough on my mobile, sorry.

 

Yes I said "no change," which is against altering null state. This is different than against the change. I'm not against it, I'm not for changing null state without proper consideration, based on logic.

[Steampunkette]

Yes I said "no change," which is against altering null state. This is different than against the change. I'm not against it, I'm not for changing null state without proper consideration, based on logic.

 

You're either for changing it, against changing it, or don't care.

 

You are against changing it, based on your statement.

 

Your reason for being against changing it is that you don't like the reasons presented to support changing it. This is an entirely valid position to take.

 

It's very simple. This isn't computer science. There's no need to add in a Null State for this one.

[SwitchFade]

Yes I said "no change," which is against altering null state. This is different than against the change. I'm not against it, I'm not for changing null state without proper consideration, based on logic.

 

You're either for changing it, against changing it, or don't care.

 

You are against changing it, based on your statement.

 

Your reason for being against changing it is that you don't like the reasons presented to support changing it. This is an entirely valid position to take.

 

It's very simple. This isn't computer science. There's no need to add in a Null State for this one.

 

You are incorrect concerning my disposition, as only I speak for me.

 

Null state, which is the present, and changes to null state are fine, should such changes be argued syllogistically. Logic.

 

You BELIEVE that there is only for, against or don't care. *Shrug* ok. I see you think that.

 

I am not for or against this specific change. I am not for or against change in general.

 

I am against changes to null state that are presented with flawed logic. I will only consider a change that is presented syllogistically.

 

I have not even considered the change, as the logic is not syllogistic.

 

Your decision that I have only three options is incorrect, as I choose for me, and you are not considering all values of null state.

 

I have made no value judgement on this specific change, only on the argument for it, and thus cannot Advocate a change.

 

Notice that not being for something is NOT the same as being against it.

[Rylas]

This is a valid point. I still think that Page (And social justice lol) would be better served by an alternative reaction from Harris, but you’re right about highlighting the player’s choice to not agree with Harris’s actions.

 

MCM

 

For what it's worth, I find Harris questioning if he was in the wrong to be incredibly unlikely. His level of obsession also shows signs of corrosive narcissism. If anything, he would find ways to justify his actions even if he found killing Page unfortunate. You could argue that trying to turn him into a relatable character is the wrong way to portray a straight up villain (this isn't Praetoria, after all). You don't get to kill someone because of your ego and then get to be a victim, too. Regardless of gender, that just doesn't work.

 

Rewriting the story from that angle could also provide some room for addressing some of your concerns. At least turning him into someone more despisable reinforces the wrongness of his actions.

[Steampunkette]

Yes I said "no change," which is against altering null state. This is different than against the change. I'm not against it, I'm not for changing null state without proper consideration, based on logic.

 

You're either for changing it, against changing it, or don't care.

 

You are against changing it, based on your statement.

 

Your reason for being against changing it is that you don't like the reasons presented to support changing it. This is an entirely valid position to take.

 

It's very simple. This isn't computer science. There's no need to add in a Null State for this one.

 

I am not for or against this specific change. I am not for or against change in general.

 

I am against changes to null state that are presented with flawed logic. I will only consider a change that is presented syllogistically.

 

These statements are incongruous. This is not a subroutine. This is not a program. There is no Null State, here. You're not coming back with no data and not changing the program. You are making a Value Judgement to the strength of the argument that the OP initially provided. This is not a Null State result. This is a rejection of input data in order to determine a decision.

 

Your penchant for obfuscating noncomplex logical conclusions through superflous circumlocution is positively exasperating. Syllogistic Logic? Really?

 

For those who don't know what Syllogism is, it's a situation where you have two statements and based on those two statements create a third, whether it's true or not is irrelevant.

 

"All dogs are animals. All animals have four legs. Thus all dogs have four legs." The first statement is true, the last statement is true barring deformity or injury, but the middle statement? Not true.

 

Syllogistic reasoning is why Diogenes ran into Socrates' classroom holding up a plucked chicken screaming "Behold a Man!" when Socrates described men as Featherless Bipeds.

[Machariel]

I'm not reading 11 (edit: and now 12, got'em) pages of this, but I think that at least changing the character's name from "[whoever's GF]" to "Lt. Page" is both widely acknowledged to be a good idea and probably takes the least effort on the part of the developers. 

[Rylas]

Null state, which is the present, and changes to null state are fine, should such changes be argued syllogistically. Logic.

 

What is Null State suppose to even mean in this situation?? I mean, I agree that the logic presented by OP wasn't a good enough reason to change anything, but I can't make sense of the word salad your tossing out there to say you're being neutral.

[SwitchFade]

Yes I said "no change," which is against altering null state. This is different than against the change. I'm not against it, I'm not for changing null state without proper consideration, based on logic.

 

You're either for changing it, against changing it, or don't care.

 

You are against changing it, based on your statement.

 

Your reason for being against changing it is that you don't like the reasons presented to support changing it. This is an entirely valid position to take.

 

It's very simple. This isn't computer science. There's no need to add in a Null State for this one.

 

I am not for or against this specific change. I am not for or against change in general.

 

I am against changes to null state that are presented with flawed logic. I will only consider a change that is presented syllogistically.

 

These statements are incongruous. This is not a subroutine. This is not a program. There is no Null State, here. You're not coming back with no data and not changing the program. You are making a Value Judgement to the strength of the argument that the OP initially provided. This is not a Null State result. This is a rejection of input data in order to determine a decision.

 

Your penchant for obfuscating noncomplex logical conclusions through superflous circumlocution is positively exasperating. Syllogistic Logic? Really?

 

For those who don't know what Syllogism is, it's a situation where you have two statements and based on those two statements create a third, whether it's true or not is irrelevant.

 

"All dogs are animals. All animals have four legs. Thus all dogs have four legs." The first statement is true, the last statement is true barring deformity or injury, but the middle statement? Not true.

 

Syllogistic reasoning is why Diogenes ran into Socrates' classroom holding up a plucked chicken screaming "Behold a Man!" when Socrates described men as Featherless Bipeds.

 

You misunderstand syllogistic reasoning, and have engaged in traps in syllogism.

 

Here is a clear definition

 

A syllogism (Greek; syllogismos, "conclusion, inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

 

I perceive a misconception of null state. Here is the basis of null, and it's use in argumentation

 

Adjective

 

English borrowed "null" from the Anglo-French nul, meaning "not any." That word, in turn, traces to the Latin word nullus, from ne-, meaning "not," and ullus, meaning "any."

 

Null state, not any change. Colloquially, current state. Used in statistics, argumentation and analytical fields.

 

Again, you do not tell me how I think, and I do not make value judgements on things that have irrational suppositions. I do not even consider them, rendering a vote of no change from null state. YET.

 

SO. I thank you for your perspective, I respect your feelings about the subject, I ask you to stop assigning things to me.

[SwitchFade]

Null state, which is the present, and changes to null state are fine, should such changes be argued syllogistically. Logic.

 

What is Null State suppose to even mean in this situation?? I mean, I agree that the logic presented by OP wasn't a good enough reason to change anything, but I can't make sense of the word salad your tossing out there to say you're being neutral.

 

I appreciate you perceive that the native language I use from the geographic location I am from, and therefore most of my life speaking, is word salad.

 

However, I do not insult you for not understanding me. Please return the favor.

[GamerKate]

This is a valid point. I still think that Page (And social justice lol) would be better served by an alternative reaction from Harris, but you’re right about highlighting the player’s choice to not agree with Harris’s actions.

 

MCM

 

For what it's worth, I find Harris questioning if he was in the wrong to be incredibly unlikely. His level of obsession also shows signs of corrosive narcissism. If anything, he would find ways to justify his actions even if he found killing Page unfortunate. You could argue that trying to turn him into a relatable character is the wrong way to portray a straight up villain (this isn't Praetoria, after all). You don't get to kill someone because of your ego and then get to be a victim, too. Regardless of gender, that just doesn't work.

 

Rewriting the story from that angle could also provide some room for addressing some of your concerns. At least turning him into someone more despisable reinforces the wrongness of his actions.

 

I agree. I said a good few pages back that I think the arc would be less sexist if he felt no remorse for her death. Your point about him being a victim is spot on.

 

MCM

[GamerKate]

Yes I said "no change," which is against altering null state. This is different than against the change. I'm not against it, I'm not for changing null state without proper consideration, based on logic.

 

You're either for changing it, against changing it, or don't care.

 

You are against changing it, based on your statement.

 

Your reason for being against changing it is that you don't like the reasons presented to support changing it. This is an entirely valid position to take.

 

It's very simple. This isn't computer science. There's no need to add in a Null State for this one.

 

I am not for or against this specific change. I am not for or against change in general.

 

I am against changes to null state that are presented with flawed logic. I will only consider a change that is presented syllogistically.

 

These statements are incongruous. This is not a subroutine. This is not a program. There is no Null State, here. You're not coming back with no data and not changing the program. You are making a Value Judgement to the strength of the argument that the OP initially provided. This is not a Null State result. This is a rejection of input data in order to determine a decision.

 

Your penchant for obfuscating noncomplex logical conclusions through superflous circumlocution is positively exasperating. Syllogistic Logic? Really?

 

For those who don't know what Syllogism is, it's a situation where you have two statements and based on those two statements create a third, whether it's true or not is irrelevant.

 

"All dogs are animals. All animals have four legs. Thus all dogs have four legs." The first statement is true, the last statement is true barring deformity or injury, but the middle statement? Not true.

 

Syllogistic reasoning is why Diogenes ran into Socrates' classroom holding up a plucked chicken screaming "Behold a Man!" when Socrates described men as Featherless Bipeds.

 

Well, this thread went places I never thought it would! I’m certainly learning things even if some other men here aren’t! XD

 

MCM

[Rylas]

I appreciate you perceive that the native language I use from the geographic location I am from, and therefore most of my life speaking, is word salad.

 

However, I do not insult you for not understanding me. Please return the favor.

 

Let's break down your explanation.

 

English borrowed "null" from the Anglo-French nul, meaning "not any." That word, in turn, traces to the Latin word nullus, from ne-, meaning "not," and ullus, meaning "any."

 

I do not even consider them, rendering a vote of no change from null state. YET.

 

So, by your explanation, you are "rendering a vote of no change from not any change." At best it's an incredibly confusing double negative.

 

If I wanted to insult you, which I don't, I'd say something to the effect of how trying to use overly complicated wording to be as vague as possible when trying to argue over semantics only makes you look pompous and idiotic. But I'm saying that, I only pointed out how confusing your word choice is. If you choose to be insulted by that, I can't stop you from doing so. But you could also choose different wording to convey the same intended message. Which no one is stopping you from doing either.

[Rylas]

I agree. I said a good few pages back that I think the arc would be less sexist if he felt no remorse for her death. Your point about him being a victim is spot on.

 

MCM

 

Ah, I tried my best to read the whole thread before commenting. I must have missed that. Apologies.

[Steampunkette]

Yes I said "no change," which is against altering null state. This is different than against the change. I'm not against it, I'm not for changing null state without proper consideration, based on logic.

 

You're either for changing it, against changing it, or don't care.

 

You are against changing it, based on your statement.

 

Your reason for being against changing it is that you don't like the reasons presented to support changing it. This is an entirely valid position to take.

 

It's very simple. This isn't computer science. There's no need to add in a Null State for this one.

 

I am not for or against this specific change. I am not for or against change in general.

 

I am against changes to null state that are presented with flawed logic. I will only consider a change that is presented syllogistically.

 

These statements are incongruous. This is not a subroutine. This is not a program. There is no Null State, here. You're not coming back with no data and not changing the program. You are making a Value Judgement to the strength of the argument that the OP initially provided. This is not a Null State result. This is a rejection of input data in order to determine a decision.

 

Your penchant for obfuscating noncomplex logical conclusions through superflous circumlocution is positively exasperating. Syllogistic Logic? Really?

 

For those who don't know what Syllogism is, it's a situation where you have two statements and based on those two statements create a third, whether it's true or not is irrelevant.

 

"All dogs are animals. All animals have four legs. Thus all dogs have four legs." The first statement is true, the last statement is true barring deformity or injury, but the middle statement? Not true.

 

Syllogistic reasoning is why Diogenes ran into Socrates' classroom holding up a plucked chicken screaming "Behold a Man!" when Socrates described men as Featherless Bipeds.

 

You misunderstand syllogistic reasoning, and have engaged in traps in syllogism.

 

Here is a clear definition

 

A syllogism (Greek; syllogismos, "conclusion, inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

 

I perceive a misconception of null state. Here is the basis of null, and it's use in argumentation

 

Adjective

 

English borrowed "null" from the Anglo-French nul, meaning "not any." That word, in turn, traces to the Latin word nullus, from ne-, meaning "not," and ullus, meaning "any."

 

Null state, not any change. Colloquially, current state. Used in statistics, argumentation and analytical fields.

 

Again, you do not tell me how I think, and I do not make value judgements on things that have irrational suppositions. I do not even consider them, rendering a vote of no change from null state. YET.

 

SO. I thank you for your perspective, I respect your feelings about the subject, I ask you to stop assigning things to me.

 

Fade, I'm sitting here citing incidents in which Di freaking Ogenes the dog-life philosopher countered a syllogistic argument with simple (hilarious) proof that it was wrong. I don't need a lesson in the etymology for you to provide semantic clarity.

 

I will reiterate that your position is ridiculous. It's like you're trying to surround the arguments being provided by being on no side while simultaneously declaring that there should be no change 'cause 'Null State".  In the context of people discussing whether there should be a change or not, stating things should remain as they are? S'not nothing.

 

If you're not going to contribute to the actual discussion, say by countering the provided arguments with some of your own or choosing a side in the debate to offer your support or even to simply abstain from said debate declaring that it has no effect on you whether it changes or not..?

 

It might be best to exclude yourself from continuing discussion. As it is you've only added confusion and digression.

[jack_nomind]

Fade, I'm sitting here citing incidents in which Di freaking Ogenes the dog-life philosopher countered a syllogistic argument with simple (hilarious) proof that it was wrong. I don't need a lesson in the etymology for you to provide semantic clarity.

 

well hold on now, the logical syllogism was invented by aristotle, and socrates never taught in a classroom; it was plato's academy and merely a disruptive stunt, not a disproof of something.

 

all of this is very, very important to clarify and adds a lot to this discussion.