The Back Room

[Retech]

tl;dr > ?

 

I would summarize it concisely, but I didn't read it all the way through. :P

[Ieyfura]

tl;dr > ?

 

I would summarize it concisely, but I didn't read it all the way through. :P

 

Damn. I did. And it was an interesting read. (Seriously, it was, this isn't a tease or anything)

 

Although I'll let archi summarize it for you, since he knows his own words better than a reader like myself would. :P

[archimage_a]

tl;dr:

We might as well be attempting to quantify whether 2 is better than 3, or whether 5 is morally corrupt.

When we talk about an action we are talking about an Objective Fact.

When we talk about Morality we are talking about Subjective Interpretation.

 

If we say that 5 if morally corrupt because it disrespects 2 because, in digital display, it is the opposite of it, then that doesn't make 5 morally corrupt.

 

It can only be morally corrupt if we say, subjectively, that being opposite something is disrespectful.

Even though 5 and 2 being opposite, when displayed digitally, is an Objective Fact.

 

(This is a simplified argument since it would be more or less impossible to explain such a complex interaction, in ways that were irrefutable, in a brief format. It is NOT to be used to argue against me.)

 

On a ligher note:

 

 

(Picture doesn't move, looks like it might, but it doesn't =P)

[Retech]

But who is to say that 2+2=4, when the party says that 2+2=5? #-o

 

And everyone knows that 5 is morally corrupt. PENTAgram

[archimage_a]

But who is to say that 2+2=4, when the party says that 2+2=5?

Jeeves

 

And everyone knows that 5 is morally corrupt. PENTAgram

Assuming sarcasm...but historically that was due to the subjective interpretation of Christanity. The Pentagram is typically a symbol of protection AGAINST the dark, rather than the symbol OF the dark.

At least that is the subjective interpretation of the Pagans =P

[The_Mather1]

What you used there was disregarding, not disrespecting. Disrespecting is when what you do can be seen as an insult to their judgement, opinion or skills, such as by desecrating a corpse, which by any religion I can think of besides satanism, voodoo, some tribal religions and possibly wicca have deemed evil, thus stating that you do not recognize their opinion and judgement as valid. Discussing a topic someone finds insulting within earshot of them is disregarding their feelings, but unless you discuss it with them it is not disrespecting.

 

Also disrespecting may require some further emphasis on certain points than disregarding does.

Say you talk to a devout christian about the Big Bang, that's disregarding their belief.

But if you talk to a devout christian about how creation theory can be disproved, that's disrespecting their belief.

[archimage_a]

I am rather at a loss to your argument...

 

Lets say there was a 'Poet' (*Winks at Ieyfura*) doing 'Poetry' on the internet, with someone who had, in the past, said they would like to do 'Poetry', and the people who are watching have said they like 'Poetry'...

 

I am failing to understand how 'Poetry' is therefore Objectively Wrong...even within your system of Objectivity, which is riddled with Subjective judgement.

 

Disrespecting is when what you do can be seen as an insult to their judgement, opinion or skills

So you think that it is not an insult to eat someone for your survival?

 

Or perhaps you merely think it is ok to shoot a pig and eat it because you don't believe that it has the judgement, opinion or skills the validate its continued existance?

You know because showing someone a picture of something is MUCH worse than shooting them in the face and then eating them.

[The_Mather1]

I think it's fair to eat a pig because we're above it on the food chain. I don't think it's morally right to eat a monkey, dog, or dolphin because they are intelligent enough to understand the concept of death and are thus capable of fearing it.

 

But yeah, since you're being nitypicky, it is also disrespectful to someone's memory to do anything to their body that they would not have approved of. Though there are other ways to insult people that doesn't involve disrespecting them.

[archimage_a]

I particuarly like the 'We are above pigs in the food chain' argument...Especially next to 'Intelligent enough' argument.

 

In the first place Pigs are easily as intelligent as Dogs, if not considerably more so. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/10angier.html

(Also check Wikipedia)

 

In the second place, put a Human and a Wild Boar in a room and the Boar has more chance of killing the Human than the Human does of killing the boar. So your food chain argument is rather dependant on Humans having technology easily available.

 

In the third place, Monkies and Dogs have been eaten across the planet at various times...And in combination with your other arguments you are definately taking a Western-Centric view of what it is morally ok to eat.

 

I am just generally amused by your arguments...its like watching Gilbert and Sullivan...

[The_Mather1]

Until it has been proven that a pig is capable of grieving, I refuse to believe any claims that they rank as intelligent, because whether they are capable of semi-advanced actions or not, they are instinct-driven creatures.

 

And the reason a boar can kill an unarmed human more easily than the other way around is because: 1. The boar will attack first, 2. Humans gave evolved to use tools rather than brute strength. Though you can replace that unarmed human with pretty much any professional martial artist, then the boar will drop first.

[Icuownage]

Animals are intelligent, and it's a pretty annoying argument people use when they say certain animals are off limits because they're intelligent.

 

No matter what, we are intelligent enough to know about the concept of death (us as humans) and thus us killing any animal is still as barbaric no matter the situation, but I personally believe animals are indeed also as intelligent enough to know about the concept of death, and I mean almost all animals, up until the point where they no longer have a survival instinct (I am not sure if there is an animal out there that does not have this), because their survival instinct is to fear death and to survive as long as possible, and thus logic dictates they know what it is.

 

However, I am not a believer in that we should not kill because the thing can feel, I believe in survival. We must kill to survive (even if you're a vegetarian, plants still are alive (but probably unable to fear death)).

 

So to summarise, I beleive all animals have a the capacity to understand death, but that should not affect the neccessity to kill. It's the law of natural selection.

[archimage_a]

Until it has been proven that a pig is capable of grieving, I refuse to believe any claims that they rank as intelligent, because whether they are capable of semi-advanced actions or not, they are instinct-driven creatures.

 

Until it has been proven a human is capable of grieving, to a degree that I am satisfied as fufills the nature of the my interpretation of the word, my career as a mass murdering physcopath will not be stopped.

 

Now change the word Human to Pig and we have you.

 

Also you have pretty much abandoned the concept of Objectivity at this point by saying 'I refuse to believe', so congrats on that.

 

 

And the reason a boar can kill an unarmed human more easily than the other way around is because: 1. The boar will attack first, 2. Humans gave evolved to use tools rather than brute strength. Though you can replace that unarmed human with pretty much any professional martial artist, then the boar will drop first.

Ah I see.

So Martial Arts Specialists are higher up the food chain than normal humans?

Well, the Battle of Shiroyama more or less proved that the Machine Gunist was superior to the Martial Artist, so clearly Machine Gunists are higher up the food chain than Martial Artists.

 

So now we have established that Might is Right we have more or less entirely departed from the realms of Objectivity and are now deeply steeped in the realms of Subjectivity and Killing all who oppose us.

 

 

 

I congratulate you Mather, rarely do I encounter a Human that can so easily be lead into the slaughtering room, and I didn't even have to lay a trail of sweets.

[The_Mather1]

Grieving as in expressing sadness. I don't know how dolphins do it, but orangutans and gorillas do it by tending to the corpse and showing respect much in the same manner as humans do, dogs do it by protecting the corpse, pigs don't do it at all, what I suspect a pig would do is to carry on their daily business and then staying away when it starts to smell.

 

And on the matter of intelligence, objectivity is impossible, as it can only be determined by examining the degree of cleverness and complexity of actions that are consciously chosen, now this is impossible to do until we create a program capable of simulating a pig and a computer fast enough to run it.

 

 

And no, I do not deem martial artist to be further ahead of the rest of us on the food chain any more than I deem lionesses to be ahead of lions or ant soldiers to be ahead of ant workers.

[archimage_a]

I do not deem

I suspect

So more conclusive proof you are not Objective.

 

And on the matter of intelligence, objectivity is impossible, as it can only be determined by examining the degree of cleverness and complexity of actions that are consciously chosen, now this is impossible to do until we create a program capable of simulating a pig and a computer fast enough to run it.

According to Mather Humans are not intelligent.

Now we know.

 

 

 

Seriously Mather, fun though it is to point at the holes in a box full of bullet ridden Bibles, arguing against you is becoming an exercise in tediousness.

[The_Mather1]

Just checked up on my Steam downloads when I noticed this:

(Low download rate is just Steam's fault, with the instability and all.)

 

I love my ISP.

For the record, that's 2.21x the network speed we're signed up for, and 3.68x what we bought.

 

I'm not even sure how that's possible, that's 110.4 Mbs, and my network cable is only a Cat 5 (supposedly only able to handle up to 100 Mbs).

[archimage_a]

I am impressed by your ISP as well...Apparently they have Steam Fooling Software that forces it to display 13.8 Mb/s rather than 110.4.

 

 

On an unrelated note, Glasses?

[Corvus]

Just checked up on my Steam downloads when I noticed this:

(Low download rate is just Steam's fault, with the instability and all.)

 

I love my ISP.

For the record, that's 2.21x the network speed we're signed up for, and 3.68x what we bought.

 

I'm not even sure how that's possible, that's 110.4 Mbs, and my network cable is only a Cat 5 (supposedly only able to handle up to 100 Mbs).

 

The difference between MB/s and Mb/s is more wishful thinking than anything, as its very common to mix up the two and many users don't really care enough to insist upon using the right term.

 

Also, what sort of dodgy Ethernet cable are you using, since many modern Cat 5 cables are rated for 1000BASE-T and alot of the rest can still be used for Gigabit Ethernet(assuming the manufacturer isn't cutting costs and is only manufacturing it with 2 pairs instead of the standard 4. 1000Base-t cables are very much prefered though.)

[The_Mather1]

I know for certain it wasn't Mbs, because then I would still be downloading updates now.

Also by professional programs they're almost always used correctly. Tools that download files use Bytes, tools for measuring network speed use bits.

 

And no, Cat5-cables are for up to 100 Mbs, Cat6-cables (the most modern network cables) however can handle up to 1000 Mbs, aka. Gigabit networks.

 

Just look here:

[archimage_a]

Paul being witty:

[hide]

[/hide]

 

I lol'ed

[The_Mather1]

That's so true, but to be fair, now games have actual length rather than using the Nintendo solution (Game not long enough? Make it harder).

[archimage_a]

To be fair that has happened a lot throughout the history of video games...its just in the past games were limited in their size by memory...Now you can cram just about as much stuff in as you like, so we notice the difference between really hard games and long games.

See Hitman.

[The_Mather1]

I just realized that suddenly I am able to see pictures hosted by Tinypic in Chrome again, but not tinypic itself or at all in Opera. This is very confusing.

[Alg]

Paul being witty:

I lol'ed

I tried coming up with a counterpoint, then remembered that most of the DLC on Steam is (Are?) map packs and shortcuts (For lack of a better term. Better gear unlocked right away).

 

At least some developers are catching on. Mass Effect 2's and Dragon Age: Origin's DLC (With the exception of Warden's Keep) were done well, for the most part: Extra side quests that weren't necessary but added a bit more to the game. Plus, the only one that went over $10 was the one that was included with every new copy :razz:

[archimage_a]

Aye, Mass Effect added something to to the game, but the game was complete without them. The exception being Arrival, which really should have been part of the standard game, or, at the very least, released as a free addon...especially since it directly maps onto Mass Effect 3.

 

Can understand why they might have done it, it did expand the game, and you don't NEED it to play Mass Effect 3...But still...I can remember Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge...Now that was an expansion pack.

[Nexaduro]

I hear there's a DLC for Infamous 2 that tosses out all logic and continuity and turns it into a vampire-based horror game. I want to try it out, it was ranked one of the top DLCs for this year.