A non fiction writer that focuses on that stuff less will produce inferior work.
Okay, now I'm really confused.
A non-fiction writer that focuses on plot and characterization less? A non-fiction writer doesn't necessarily need to focus on plot or characterization at all. Are we talking about the same things?
Characterization is painting a picture of the people around the narrator or protagonist. Fleshing out round, intriguing characters. A non fiction writer can ignore this he's just telling his story about 'nam or whatever, but it will produce inferior work, because people in real life are rarely flat or static characters.
I think so, since the first time you could only have one pair of people shake hands per step.
N-1 for even N
N-1 + ceiling N/2 for odd N?
Does that even work?
I'm not sure. For N = 3, you can only have one pair at a time anyways:
So:
1-2
1-3
2-3
Is 3 steps. So N-1 + ceiling N/2 = 2 + 2 = 4. But, in this case N-1 + floor N/2 would work. Unless 3 is just a special case. 5 gets complicated and I don't feel like working it out. :P
A non fiction writer that focuses on that stuff less will produce inferior work.
Okay, now I'm really confused.
A non-fiction writer that focuses on plot and characterization less? A non-fiction writer doesn't necessarily need to focus on plot or characterization at all. Are we talking about the same things?
Characterization is painting a picture of the people around the narrator or protagonist. Fleshing out round, intriguing characters. A non fiction writer can ignore this he's just telling his story about 'nam or whatever, but it will produce inferior work, because people in real life are rarely flat or static characters.
I think we're talking about two different things when we talk about "non-fiction" here. By "non-fiction," I'm not just referring to memoirs.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Well... you know... non-fiction. Books on history, philosophy, psychology... Like the books on my nightstand at home right now are This is Your Brain on Music, Generation Debt, Foucault's The History of Sexuality, and Beware the Talking Cure.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I think so, since the first time you could only have one pair of people shake hands per step.
N-1 for even N
N-1 + ceiling N/2 for odd N?
Does that even work?
I'm not sure. For N = 3, you can only have one pair at a time anyways:
So:
1-2
1-3
2-3
Is 3 steps. So N-1 + ceiling N/2 = 2 + 2 = 4. But, in this case N-1 + floor N/2 would work. Unless 3 is just a special case. 5 gets complicated and I don't feel like working it out. :P
It's okay
It's N-1 for even #s
N for odd #s
EDIT: Or what Senj said, he's probably right
Shazkar Shadowstorm on
poo
0
Options
PasserbyeI am much older than you.in Beach CityRegistered Userregular
Don't try to teach people that faith is bunk. That way lies only more pain, anger, and resentment. Teach them that faith can mean something different, something freeing and inclusive and malleable.
That is how you win hearts and minds.
Sorry for being late on the response to this (I was frantically trying to get a report out).
Just what can faith mean, Zimmy? I'm honestly curious. Faith to me is an empty concept. It is devoid of worth to society.
From my perspective, you're advocating that I lie to people's faces about faith in order that they don't outright reject my viewpoint. Is that what you're saying?
Faith doesn't have to refer to religious belief, you can have "faith" in a person or group of people to do the right thing, or in an optimistic belief to be proven right in the end. This particular definition may be closer to "trust," but I tend to think of trust as being earned whereas faith is offered. It's you taking the first step, placing responsibility in the hands of the other person to validate your belief that, when push comes to shove, they'll do the right thing.
That's the kind of faith you need to have: that when the chips are down, even if you disagree with someone you're still willing to believe that they're capable of putting their biases aside to serve a higher purpose. Sure, sometimes that faith won't be justified, and your hand of friendship will be slapped away. But that doesn't mean you stop, doesn't mean you become cynical and certainly doesn't mean you were wrong to make the first offer.
It's not easy, and it can be frustrating when people don't live up to your expectations, but naked cynicism never amounts to much of anything.
Ah. But see, that's equivocating.
If I'm talking to a religious person and I say "Faith is important to me, too" and I start talking about putting biases aside and believing in the goodness of people, I've just ceased talking about the very thing under discussion.
I am now not talking about their "Faith" in God. I'm talking about a looser, broader faith that is not "Belief in spite of logic or evidence."
I'm being disingenuous.
I didn't mean to suggest earlier that the method is to replace their religious faith with the secular optimism I elaborated on in the post you quoted. That "faith" is what I recommend to otherwise faithless people who have a hard time identifying with people of religious faith, and who tend towards a negative or overly pessimistic view of people in general.
With regard to what you're talking about, your optimism and open-mindedness re: their conservative beliefs will earn you some trust, which you can then use to help explain why your secular morality and their religious beliefs are not incompatible. Once you get to the point where you can both agree that intelligent adults can have otherwise conflicting views on certain issues, and yet still agree that the other is a "good person," you can begin to use that common ground to broaden their world view.
Most religious conservatives think that the secular world is openly hostile to them. You need to show them otherwise, but you can't do that if you don't trust them first. Believe it or not, even the most dour fundamentalist tends to think of themselves as being "optimistic," because they believe that God will solve their problems in the end. You need to show them that you can be optimistic too, because you believe that mankind, as children of God, have the ability to recognize and choose the right path. You can co-opt their own logic, use their faith to help convince them, so long as you're sincere and they don't think you're just trying to manipulate their beliefs to your advantage.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
Don't try to teach people that faith is bunk. That way lies only more pain, anger, and resentment. Teach them that faith can mean something different, something freeing and inclusive and malleable.
That is how you win hearts and minds.
Sorry for being late on the response to this (I was frantically trying to get a report out).
Just what can faith mean, Zimmy? I'm honestly curious. Faith to me is an empty concept. It is devoid of worth to society.
From my perspective, you're advocating that I lie to people's faces about faith in order that they don't outright reject my viewpoint. Is that what you're saying?
Faith doesn't have to refer to religious belief, you can have "faith" in a person or group of people to do the right thing, or in an optimistic belief to be proven right in the end. This particular definition may be closer to "trust," but I tend to think of trust as being earned whereas faith is offered. It's you taking the first step, placing responsibility in the hands of the other person to validate your belief that, when push comes to shove, they'll do the right thing.
That's the kind of faith you need to have: that when the chips are down, even if you disagree with someone you're still willing to believe that they're capable of putting their biases aside to serve a higher purpose. Sure, sometimes that faith won't be justified, and your hand of friendship will be slapped away. But that doesn't mean you stop, doesn't mean you become cynical and certainly doesn't mean you were wrong to make the first offer.
It's not easy, and it can be frustrating when people don't live up to your expectations, but naked cynicism never amounts to much of anything.
Ah. But see, that's equivocating.
If I'm talking to a religious person and I say "Faith is important to me, too" and I start talking about putting biases aside and believing in the goodness of people, I've just ceased talking about the very thing under discussion.
I am now not talking about their "Faith" in God. I'm talking about a looser, broader faith that is not "Belief in spite of logic or evidence."
I'm being disingenuous.
I didn't mean to suggest earlier that the method is to replace their religious faith with the secular optimism I elaborated on in the post you quoted. That "faith" is what I recommend to otherwise faithless people who have a hard time identifying with people of religious faith, and who tend towards a negative or overly pessimistic view of people in general.
With regard to what you're talking about, your optimism and open-mindedness re: their conservative beliefs will earn you some trust, which you can then use to help explain why your secular morality and their religious beliefs are not incompatible. Once you get to the point where you can both agree that intelligent adults can have otherwise conflicting views on certain issues, and yet still agree that the other is a "good person," you can begin to use that common ground to broaden their world view.
Most religious conservatives think that the secular world is openly hostile to them. You need to show them otherwise, but you can't do that if you don't trust them first. Believe it or not, even the most dour fundamentalist tends to think of themselves as being "optimistic," because they believe that God will solve their problems in the end. You need to show them that you can be optimistic too, because you believe that mankind, as children of God, have the ability to recognize and choose the right path. You can co-opt their own logic, use their faith to help convince them, so long as you're sincere and they don't think you're just trying to manipulate their beliefs to your advantage.
So I decided to try out Baldur's Gate after all this time owning a copy...created a mage and...I only get to use Magic Missile once? WTF?
Uhm, you have never played or read over the basic rules of Dungeons & Dragons before?
Spells and special abilities are not as common as in most fantasy games, especially at lower levels you will have to depend on your common weapons a lot more. As you progress you'll get to learn more spells, but you still won't be able to just spam them. That's not how magic works in D&D.
Aldo on
0
Options
PasserbyeI am much older than you.in Beach CityRegistered Userregular
Posts
She's cute, nice rack, plays drums.
Could do a lot worse.
1)no
2)maybe?
Oh, I think not. :winky:
Face Twit Rav Gram
I mean, we have to say yes just on general principle usually.
it's in the bibletution
2) What're you, gay or something? A female's talking about being naked. Get with the program, Mike.
Face Twit Rav Gram
This is true.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Characterization is painting a picture of the people around the narrator or protagonist. Fleshing out round, intriguing characters. A non fiction writer can ignore this he's just telling his story about 'nam or whatever, but it will produce inferior work, because people in real life are rarely flat or static characters.
I've got 7 steps for 5 people
1) Three.
2) Schwa.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think we're talking about two different things when we talk about "non-fiction" here. By "non-fiction," I'm not just referring to memoirs.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
3)onions
9001)IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAA-
Um...
I didn't find the woman in that GIS particularly attractive.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah I'm with your friends on this one.
Heh. I wasn't going to say, but agreed.
so, that's the reason for the maybe
1) Star Wars.
2) Batman Beyond.
Yay association games?
Face Twit Rav Gram
Actually, they're not very flattering pictures. I just GiS'd her and pasted the link for reference.
I get the idea that she might be more attractive with different hair and/or makeup choices.
Well... you know... non-fiction. Books on history, philosophy, psychology... Like the books on my nightstand at home right now are This is Your Brain on Music, Generation Debt, Foucault's The History of Sexuality, and Beware the Talking Cure.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's okay
It's N-1 for even #s
N for odd #s
EDIT: Or what Senj said, he's probably right
Well, if you thought I was male, you still said maybe. Gay.
Face Twit Rav Gram
the crackwhore look is so hard to pull off
So, I !pass, on naked passerby
look get out of here with your jive speak and your ghetto music
I know a game where we can "associate."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
look i'm not gay alright
i just suck dicks for pleasure
For odd N it's the answer for N-1 (which is even, so N-2) plus the N-1 handshakes for the odd guy out.
I think that's as efficient as you can get.
I am really really out of it because of these sinutabs though
I didn't mean to suggest earlier that the method is to replace their religious faith with the secular optimism I elaborated on in the post you quoted. That "faith" is what I recommend to otherwise faithless people who have a hard time identifying with people of religious faith, and who tend towards a negative or overly pessimistic view of people in general.
With regard to what you're talking about, your optimism and open-mindedness re: their conservative beliefs will earn you some trust, which you can then use to help explain why your secular morality and their religious beliefs are not incompatible. Once you get to the point where you can both agree that intelligent adults can have otherwise conflicting views on certain issues, and yet still agree that the other is a "good person," you can begin to use that common ground to broaden their world view.
Most religious conservatives think that the secular world is openly hostile to them. You need to show them otherwise, but you can't do that if you don't trust them first. Believe it or not, even the most dour fundamentalist tends to think of themselves as being "optimistic," because they believe that God will solve their problems in the end. You need to show them that you can be optimistic too, because you believe that mankind, as children of God, have the ability to recognize and choose the right path. You can co-opt their own logic, use their faith to help convince them, so long as you're sincere and they don't think you're just trying to manipulate their beliefs to your advantage.
Yes. And some, you know, fat and muscle. And a shower because her hair didn't just look poorly styled but kinda ratty.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Nah, not offering. Being forced to by Mike.
He's such a misogynist.
Face Twit Rav Gram
I agree with everything in this post.
Spells and special abilities are not as common as in most fantasy games, especially at lower levels you will have to depend on your common weapons a lot more. As you progress you'll get to learn more spells, but you still won't be able to just spam them. That's not how magic works in D&D.
Does it involve pudding?
Face Twit Rav Gram