azeo:

Notice that when TeamQuiggan and moi come up with alternate solutions for "2+2", they immediately qualify the system, yet do not explicitly state a definition for each numeral used, explanation that the numbering order implies that each numeral represents a multiplication by a power of ten, a definition of addition, a definition of equality, and so forth. In this case we work with assumptions that we can implicitly rely on certain proven axioms without a need to explicitly state them. As another example, for expediency we both are working on the assumption that we will continue this conversation in English. If I were to choose not to do so suddenly, it qiyks oeivlvkt vw cwet xibdyaubf.

You state that using assumptions is our downfall. I believe I have demonstrated the case where it is not so, the onus is now on you to demonstrate your position is true. The closest thing I can see is an implicit assumption that because assumptions are sometimes bad, they must be bad in general? This is a fallacy. The position seems somewhat disingenuous to me.

As for communicating with someone with a different mathematical system, I imagine this would be done in an exploratory fashion, to find the basis in common, and the differences between the axioms. The worst case is that you would need to exhaustively list every possible axiom, which is the case anyway if you cannot rely on assumption. Thus the difficulty of communication is equal or less when relying on certain assumptions, which immediately invalidates any argument that supports the position that making such assumptions is a negative thing.

As for relief being a pleasure, I answered that before you asked it, in my last post. If pleasure is a category, as you state, and you define it as whether you enjoyed something, and suggest that relief is pleasure, which would mean that you enjoyed the act of killing in self-defence, whilst simultaneously being "crushed", which would suggest that you didn't. Your position seems self-contradictory.

It really feels that I am spinning wheels here. I think perhaps I have approached things the wrong way. I see you offering theories and statements, with little to back them up. I point out fallacies and problems in what you are stating. You then move on, to more theories and statements, which I then dissect, and the cycle repeats. I have stated that the onus should be upon you to demonstrate your positions are true, yet in my words show that despite what I claim, I'll respond to such comments anyway. I really should know better by now.

So this is me, backing out of a discussion in such a way as to try to not draw too much criticism from the rest of the community for appearing to be horribly rude to you.

azeo:

Bit late here, so I'll have to be fast, might not cover everything. Please forgive the mistakes in advance.

I did not identify a part of your comment that I felt was fake, I mentioned that I thought you might be deliberately messing with us. I came to this possible theory based on the degree to which you embellished on the details of your brother, many of which did not seem relevant to the story you posted. Of note also is that I post and comment in many different places, and some of the places I post in are known for their trolling. So I am perhaps a little oversensitive to it.

When I state that certain default assumptions are made, I am talking in the context of factual communication shortcuts, not opinions or moral judgments. As such, if we ignore certain unstated assumptions, things may not make sense. For example, if we look at 2+2, decide that we don't want to assume base 10, then we can't get any further in solving it. But why would you do that? I'm not sure this is any more profound than the fact that it is difficult to make sense of a sentence if you substitute the word "apple" in for every third word. Literally true, but it doesn't really prove anything significant.

Re games and movies, your experience might be biased by your parent's opinion on the matter. Most of the people I have spoken to are completely fine with both. Some have a preference for one over the other, but are quite accepting of both.

Re the pleasure/displeasure thing, I feel that from reading your comments we may experience this in very different ways. As such it might be a bit difficult to compare. I would, for example, feel horrified if I was put in a situation where I had to kill someone to defend myself, and would likely be sick for several days. I could not derive pleasure from it, and yes, I'm certain that relief is not pleasure.

Regarding polar opposites (do you mean "moral certainties/ambiguities"?), in my previous post (reply 87, page 6), I cover the reverse situation where I feel that killing a cat would be humane, and killing a bug inhumane, so I am quite aware that it is possible to frame a context in which the "right" things to do becomes "wrong", and vice versa. In fact, a very general template covers this: You can turn a "wrong" into a "right" by adding: "and if you *don't*, someone innocent will be severely harmed", and a "right" into a "wrong" by adding: "and if you *do*, someone innocent will be severely harmed". So yes, context matters, I understand what you are saying.

I would not worry too much about the ban. There are plenty of places online that you can go if you feel slighted, and if pride isn't an issue then sometimes asking nicely will suffice. As it stands, he overstepped his welcome, and was banned. It's akin to being asked to leave, not permanent decapitation. Was it right or not? I'm not too fussed. If banning is draconian or ineffective, people will leave, and in time, noone will remain. That there is still a community here suggests that the mods aren't doing too badly. I find it hard to get worked up over the ban. It'll probably be a temporary thing, by whatever means, and barely affect him at all (apart from a bit of anger for a few days). He probably has a new temporary account already.

Anyway, enough from me, it's late, I'm falling asleep, and it wasn't my intention to post excessively in the topic. I'm worried I'm drowning out other posters.

azeo:

I'll be fairly brief, despite the temptation to respond to the entire thing.

You have an interesting writing style- some very large tangents, for example: details on your brother's religious beliefs. I'm not entirely sure if you like to embellish or are deliberately messing with us? I'll assume the former for now.

Personally I feel your brother did the right thing with the deer. It would not have been an easy thing to do, but he chose to put his personal comfort aside to end the suffering of another creature.

The games/movie thing is really just a difference of opinion. Both are entertainment, but I would argue that games are superior as they are interactive.

Regarding forum bans, the actions that can lead to a ban really define the type of community that forms. There will always be someone testing the limits. As for "no one should ever get banned for just expressing their opinion", any offensive comment can be rephrased as an opinion. If I made comments relating to the unrestrained sexual promiscuity of another poster's mother here, should it be accepted simply because it is my opinion? I would say not. Polite company, as it is, has certain rules associated with it. As in real life, if you say the wrong thing, you may be asked to leave. Unlike real life, it is easy to just make another account and come back.

Right and wrong isn't simply about what someone feels is right or wrong for them. I believe that right and wrong depends on the reasoned, educated arguments that one can make for either side- and yes, culture does affect this somewhat (unfortunately). For example, torturing an animal without reason is "wrong" because of the concept of "cruelty". We know what it is like to suffer, and to cause a creature capable of suffering the same pain- particularly without reason- is inherently wrong. As for why it is right- I will leave that argument to someone who advocates such a position, but there is not a lot that can be said without the response being: "And if I was to do that to you?". Also, consider a society where it was customary to strike a child across the face when it is born. Again, it comes to the reasoned, educated arguments for whether it is right or not. Striking a child like this could cause harm, so I would argue it is wrong. I cannot think of a sensible counterargument. In this case, it would not matter whether the masses decided it was acceptable ("right") or not. I would argue that mass opinion can be aligned with what is right and wrong, but it certainly does not define it.

But then, how do we define "right" and "wrong"? This leads to the next bit.

2 + 2 *does* equal 4, because we agree on certain mathematical axioms by default. If you say that numbers on the left are worth half as much, you aren't presenting the same problem. You are presenting a different problem, under your altered framework. You statement becomes: 2 + 2 = 3, if the leftmost "2" is actually "1". This is also true, because you have clarified the framework on which it is based. Another example: 2 + 2 = 11, base 3. Again, the framework has been modified, and it is a different problem. To ease communication, we do not explicitly communicate default assumptions every time we make a statement or proposition. We communicate only the differences. For example, we assume base 10, unless stated otherwise. If we communicated default assumptions every time, even the most basic greeting would take a lifetime to state. And leaving implicit assumptions unstated is not equivalent to a statement that all possible assumptions are permitable. Besides, two-way communication is available to rectify any ambiguity in assumptions anyway.

When you say: "I kill mosquitoes all the time, because they bug me. And what is it to bug? To cause displeasure. So essentially, I am killing for pleasure.", I think you are mistaken. You kill to avoid displeasure, which is not the same as killing for pleasure. The situation where someone comes at you with a knife and you kill them, versus casually killing someone, are very different. If you wish to make an argument as to whether these somewhat different situations are the same, be my guest- the onus to show this is on you.

There is a lot more that I could respond to, but I think I'll leave the rest of it for now.

mrfredman: Looks like I've got some digging to do to figure it out- thanks for the starting point. (I'm not too familiar with the demakes compo, /v/ memes, or Gang Garrison- yet).

shrimp: I imagine in time the quality would far surpass natural stock, since you could combine the positive attributes of different cuts of meat and grow the hybrid. One day there'll be Wagyu-grade pseudo-meat burgers in fastfood.

Gainsworthy: Hm.. it would be pretty nice to be able to get a packet of T-Bone and Scotch-Fillet seeds, pop them in the garden or the meat-a-tron, and grow a bunch of tasty steaks. I hadn't heard about documentary rebranding- how bizarre.

Delmore: Is that true? Do you have any links/similar on that for me to read up on it? I hadn't heard that about Milo and Otis at all.

azeo: Wow. I'll have to give that a reread and share some thoughts. Might take a bit.

Gainsworthy:

I like animals too, they're delicious. (Please don't hurt me everyone, just trying to lighten up a potentially awkward topic). More seriously, I'm definitely a carnivore, but I'm also a strong advocate of livestock being kept in humane conditions, even if their ultimate fate is somebody's dinner plate.

As for vat meat, it'll never take off with a name like that. Perhaps something like "Designer Meat"? "Ethical Meat"? "Ultrameat"?

mrfredman:

I see a lot of bizarre avatars on the Tigsource forums that I want to ask about- and yours is one of them. If there's a story or explanation behind it, I'd love to know.

Without going into too much detail on the main topic of your post, the details of which I am simply not knowledgeable enough to respond properly to, I just wanted to address a single part of your argument regarding the relative merit of causes.

I personally believe that the presence of a greater or more noble cause does not invalidate the work on a perceived "lesser" cause. For example, earlier today I was talking with someone regarding the impact of unrestrained copyright infringement (the "p" word) on small indie developers. No doubt, during the course of my conversation, people in a far-away country that I am simply not familiar with were killed in needless fighting. Does that make my discussion on the plight of indie developers pointless, or time misspent? I'd say that it doesn't. In this case, I simply had more knowledge of this particular issue and I would argue that it may have been a better application of my time.

More directly to the point you raised, perhaps the various people involved consider it to be a more important cause, or that they are better suited to advancing that particular cause?

Lurk, your position is probably more noble than mine in that regard. For example, I tend to be completely unforgiving of ants who make it into my house lest they find a food source inside and mark a trail back to their nest. I cannot let it be, due to past experiences where I have done so that have not turned out so well for me.

rinkuhero, I agree. Morality is generally cultural. I think that you will also notice a degree of convergence on certain similar themes as the levels of education in a particular culture grow, but even then that's not a given. I like the crib example that you mention- this is a good example of a subject on which there are pros and cons, and a culture has settled on one particular idea at the expense of the other.

Lurk:

I'd say there's a good chance that the person with the camcorder was just filming the child carrying around the cat because it was cute. For all we know, there was twenty minutes of footage before this bit. Notice how the child is looking at the strange water for a bit, cat in arm, and then makes a decision to "test the water" with the cat? I think the child would have been winding up beforehand if he planned to go cat tossing. Children aren't as big on the whole premeditation thing as adults. And how would you plan such a video if it was deliberate? Young children aren't always good at following instructions, especially if they can't see a potential benefit.

Of course, I do wonder where the parent is. See the other adult and child in the background? That's how you show a child a pool, because pools have hard edges and you don't need much water to drown if you've knocked your head on the way down.

Regarding your philosophy, and the uncertainty of why, does the needs and suffering argument I make resonate with you at all? Perhaps the specifics of the needs thing is different for us. Having said that, if there was a device I could place in my house and on my person that would automatically drive off bugs and stop them dropping on my head, without hurting them, I don't think I could conscionably squish them any more. There would no longer be a need.

On a side note relating to the vat meat thing- I'd do it. Besides, vat-grown meat (or meat-like substitute) could be done in such a way as to optimise deliciousness, and would very likely be a much more efficient use of resources than grazing animals. Additionally, I'd feel no guilt eating the meat. It'd probably be cheaper too (after a while).

I'd just like to open by thanking Seth for that video. Very ontopic, and very entertaining. A more apt lesson could not have been taught that day. Clever cat.

Lurk: Small children move incredibly fast, and you often can't guess their intent before it is too late. I counted roughly two seconds from which the child's intent to throw was actually clear to the whole event being over. The child probably hadn't decided to throw the cat until the second he started, anyway. Children are like that. The child could have just as easily decided to put the cat on his head to see what happened.

As for childhood- I think everyone has done some stupid things in their early childhood. The important thing to note is that at that age you are still learning and developing your own personal sense of morality. I daresay some of the stupid things you do as a child can shape that morality in a positive way.

Anyway...

I started reading this thread thinking for a short time that there could be some argument in the whole burning cats versus squishing bugs thing. However, it really isn't that complex when you think about it. It comes down to a couple of things: Needs and suffering.

Regarding needs, consider bug-squishing. Do you go out of your way to find a bug, and squish it, or do you do so out of a competitive desire to protect your territory and health? I'd think the latter. As for burning a cat, what need is satisfied there? The cat wasn't encroaching on someone's territory, and there were far simpler means of removing it if it were. Additionally, in the former case, said bugs breed and spread very fast, and it often isn't just a simple matter of shoo-ing them out the door. This you can do to a cat. Without hurting it.

Regarding suffering, when you squish a bug, is the reason you do it to make it suffer, or to get rid of it? I'd say that it almost always the latter. Regarding burning a cat, the purpose isn't to get rid of it. The aim was to cause suffering (for amusement purposes, apparently).

If the cat was a pest (eg. wild cats attacking chickens, for example), then it could be shot. Is that more humane, and justified? I'd say so. There is a need, and the aim is not to cause it to suffer. Consider the bug squish example again, again in a different context. Suppose that you went out to a rainforest, found a spider, trapped it, and tortured it for a few hours. This would be inhumane, right? Why? No need is satisfied in harming it, and the intent is to cause suffering.

I would posit that the specific subject of the suffering (eg. cats, bugs) isn't important, it is the need satisfied and the deliberate suffering caused. Thus, when comparing the cases, consider the need, and the suffering. In the bug-squish example, it satisfies a need and is not a deliberate attempt to cause suffering. Thus, it is considered humane. In the cat burning example, there was no need to satisfy, and the suffering was inflicted deliberately. Thus it is inhumane. As such I'd say that the bugs versus cats thing is a red herring. It's the need met, and the suffering caused, that determines the morality of the action. Don't let people trick you into a argument that it is because some things are sacred and others are not.

GV: Yeah, can certainly be frustrating to hear about all the cool abilities and items that could have been used, but weren't. There's often a reason, sometimes it's inactivity, but rather frequently it is the fact that as a human if you begin completely isolated with a one-shot ability, you don't want to burn it too early. As a human it's pretty hard to know where to go and what to do near the start of the game. On the big guns comment, I think it would certainly be interesting if the bulk of people had vigilante-like abilities, or people could settle things by the fastest draw at noon. Would make for a very different game dynamic.

Xotes:

I actually felt a little guilty handing you that item because of my very dishonest reasons for doing so. At the time GV had just posted something about taking things into his own hands, so I thought I might be dead in moments. There were three main reasons I gave the item: Firstly, I'd heard you had a rifle, so I was hoping you might be able to get in first by shooting GV and save my ass. Secondly, if GV didn't succeed in killing me, you'd probably trust me completely after that- why would a wolf give you an item when he was about to die? And last of all, if GV did kill me, then with my identity revealed and my parting comment about getting the werewolves for me I thought it might cause you a fair degree of confusion about who the villains actually were. I was hoping you'd share what I'd said to you, and a theory spring up that I wasn't working with anyone else, protecting my allies. This would also hopefully result people running around in circles chasing shadows, letting the other wolves through for a win. So I was a very bad person offering you that kettle.

On another note, the Sweetest Mead sounds pretty sweet. Was it just a one-shot due to the collapse or did activating it cause you to collapse once? What did you see?

Inane: Yeah, found that out the hard way when I was trying to formulate plans with the other wolves that involved passing items around, and the others were of the opinion you couldn't, and I was thinking, nonsense, of course we can. Then I asked, and found out it was effectively an ability. But yeah, it keeps showing through in my post-game suggestions, doesn't it. D'Oh! *smacks own head*

Kao: Re the term, no probs. Re the suggestion, glad you liked it. Here's another: "This item will summon the services of a mercenary in this town. Simply hold the item in the air above your head in public (you must publicly post that you are doing this in the thread), and it will summon the services of the mercenary. They will immediately join forces with you (whether werewolf or human) for the rest of the game." You then wait for the item to be used, and private message the person who did it. If they were a wolf, you've got someone who is convinced you are on their side, and you can talk their allies out of them, and stab them all in the back at once. If they are a human, you get a confirmed ally.

Cheater: A flawed craftsman, I love it. As for the Ten Pins, if you could track down a wolf for certain, you could offer them the item, and claim that your objective is to be turned into a wolf before the end of the game. Say that you'll exchange it for the ability to be turned into a wolf. Of course, there were role-changing items in play, but you might not have known that at the start. Assuming none, you could then give in and offer the item anyway, and then the wolves would be sure you were an ally since you were helping them. You could use that to get identities out of them. Bit risky, but would have been fun.

Inane: I'm impressed at some of these item effects and abilities. I thought you had made me a somewhat overpowered character in a town of weaker abilities, it's pretty cool to hear that so many people could do so many odd things, and that I was actually quite average.

Inane: So I botched up the Seer call. Dammit.

Annabelle: If you're reading, the attack on you was my fault. When you said "drinking as a defense mechanism" (roughly), it looked like a Seer seed comment saying that chutup (I think) was a guardian or something similar. The other wolves were very reluctant to vote for you without a really good reason since you haven't been in for a few games (I think?). So yeah, I'm the bad guy here.

GV: Hm, yes, I was a bit too friendly to everyone. That would be my worst tell, I think. As best I could I was trying to emulate my behaviour from the previous game to reduce suspicion. I was hoping to draw some suspicion toward me with the not-voting thing, and when enough people got concerned about it, I was going to mention the pacifist story (a fabrication of course). I'd hinted at it a bit so it wouldn't look too much like an excuse at the time. I do need to mention one thing to you at games-end though. The reasons you've mentioned for suspecting me seem fair enough, but the aggressive approach you took instead (throw everything and see what sticks) really took a lot of the fun out of the game for me. I actually got fairly close to saying "screw this, this isn't fun at all" until I came up with an in-game explanation to just ignore it and concentrate on the rest of the game. I think you had much better options to knock me out of the game than you chose to employ. Anyway, you don't need to agree with what I'm saying, but this is how I feel. Consider it feedback. For what it's worth, congrats on some of your early wolf guesses.

Kao: Could have seriously messed with people with that one, since the description would come from Inane. Here's one suggestion: "This item has the power to detect the hidden identities (eg. Seer, guardian) of others. To do this, simply speak the word 'rainbow' to detect humans, as 'spur' to detect werewolves. You must publicly speak this word three times in a single sentence in public to make it work. The results will be known to you the next day. Note that a human using it can only detect werewolves, and a werewolf using it can only detect humans. Each person may only use the item once." Imagine what would have happened if the wolves got the item. They'd probably pass it around themselves, everyone saying "rainbow" to find the Seer, and you'd get several ID'd wolves. If a human got it, they'd say "spur", and you'd have a confirmed ally you could trust. Anyway, got a few more suggestions too, but there's a start.

chutup: Wow, what a powerful role you had, plus a confirmed ally. Very lucky. I would have looked pretty suss if you'd used your eyes on me.

Neon: Seemed to be a good amount of the detect-night-actions abilities around. I'm surprised we (as wolves) weren't massacred. :} Did you find much? Seemed you and chutup were basically mini-Masons, effectively. This can be very powerful as humans.

Kao: For "Spaghetti Westerns", I presume. I was immune to sunlight too, but I didn't mention it to anyone. Seems a few people had weird immunities. Very odd with so many immunities that we didn't see too many in effect.

Inane: Sounds like witch visions. Who was it who said we should be burning witches early on? Perhaps we should have! How strange. So nobody could have known for certain my role by the first night? I have to say I'm puzzled at GV's actions then. Was pretty full-on for a guess, even an informed one.

Well, nonetheless, was certainly an interesting game. I did get a pretty neat role, so thanks for that Inane. Wish I could have played it for all it was worth. I feel a bit disappointed I got such a good role killed off so fast.

Xion: If I accumulated enough items (eight, I think?), I could flee the town. Presumably this would leave the rest of you high and dry. It tempted me initially to hoard items, and consider talking them off the rest of you guys with wily words, but I figured the greater chance of winning would be to work together anyway, and I wasn't going to cripple our chances of victory by backstabbing.

Typewriter?

Excellent game, Inane, thankyou very much for all your efforts in running it. Wish I could have been around longer! It's hard work hosting, isn't it!

A shame I didn't fully get my devious plans into play, no thanks to that rotten gun. Oh the terrible things I had in store. I had a fully-planned out fake character whose details I was going to slowly reveal to people, and it even included a reason for me not voting. I was going to claim that I was a pacifist. I'd like to think a few of you trusted me to a fair degree right up until the point I was shot. Did it work, to a degree? Of course, I didn't know how I'd go the next day, but hey.

Apologies to Xotes for any confusion, just about everything I told you was a complete lie. I wanted to win your trust as I felt you were the most likely human.

When did Xotes become a wolf by the way? He wasn't originally- that I know of.

Was I right about the Seer-like character being Annabelle? I'll claim some of the credit if we were right, and accept the blame for the decision and offer my apologies to Annabelle if we were wrong. Nothing personal, one of your posts made me instantly suspicious that you were a Seer.

Regardless, did the real Seer say something to GV early on? I was surprised that he was human, I was so sure that he was some mad-crazy solo special with Seer powers, because I couldn't see any other explanation for his somewhat unrelenting attack on me apart from to use my death to establish credibility. Any ideas what was going on there?

Was there a Seer-like character or item?

It was interesting playing as a bad guy. After my last game I knew I had to be a chatterbox or people would instantly suspect me. Didn't seem to make a difference, seems being a chatterbox is reason enough to suspect someone.

Did anyone consume my exploding booze? I'm guessing jstckr did?

I had a hidden win condition, but I never mentioned it to my allies or anyone else. I decided early on not to bother using it, unless all my allies were killed. I was definitely going for the group win, so saw no point in mentioning it. Main reason was I was concerned we'd all get suspicious of each other if it turned out we had hidden objectives.

EDIT: was -> were, sorry, rushed post.

You're not going anywhere, Mr. Rod.

[Unicron]

Better idea:

Magical Unicron Adventure

Magical Unicron Adventure, hey? Well, what can I say, that's a game I'd play. I imagine it'd work something like this...

For me, it's the title: "Magical Unicorn Adventure". It's just too obvious, too much a play on a sickly sweet theme. It just has to be a parody, so you check it out, see the cheesy graphics and gameplay, that overexaggerated belly-flop jump, and think.... damn, any second now, any second, some gigantic blade is going to rip out of the ground and cut them in half, or the unicorn will go all PBF (*- see below) on you, or the grappling hook will tear out someone's heart, or... or...

Ahem.

And then the video finishes, and you are still thinking "damn, there's got to be another vid out there, where it's all going to happen". I think deep down I want to find that video, even though in my heart I know it is not there.

Of course, that's the sort of process your mind goes through when you read a comic like this:

Cheating can put a quick end to that pesky love!