This isn't true at all. I mean, it's true, but in terms or logical flow from one statement to the next, it's just plain fallacy. You could easily like no bad things and only some good things.
I didn't say you will, I said you can.
from the argument 'just say it's good but you don't like it' it's not unreasonable to follow with 'just say it's bad but you like it'.
not that every person necessarily holds opinions like that.
I don't know anything about fearing DMs. That shit is just hurtful is all. Dungeon Mastering is fucking work and you gotta appease 4-6 nerds.
An impossible task.
And they never pay attention to your backstory!
I ran a single city campaign for a while, the party never left the city except for a couple of forays out into the woods. They really got into the backstory.
My group has actually been thinking about moving into just doing big individual encounters for a while instead of campaigns, since none of us ever care about backstory.
Smitten is the past participle of smite. Smote is just the simple past conjugation. Most verbs have the same form for both, but smite is an old word and it ain't got time for that homogenous shit.
i'm explaining what i don't like about the comics- too full of self-indulgent references and every name drop imaginable. every few pages makes me groan, because i can imagine a 20something liberal who grew up in the late 80s going "heehee, that was cool". i don't like that, it makes it difficult for me to immerse myself in the work. i think it's lame and silly.
i haven't called anyone a pedophile or a filthy, antisocial geek. you're seriously making me sound way more hateful and judgmental than i'm actually being.
What I am saying is instead of being satisfied with saying that the comic isn't for you but you don't begrudge other people liking it you are calling the comic bad when it isn't bad, it just falls outside of your own tastes. Basically I don't see why you have to invalidate other people's tastes when all you had to do was say the comic wasn't for you. It's needlessly confrontational and it spurs arguments like these when all it could have been was "this is my personal truth" and then you could have continued to dislike the comic and I could have continued re-reading volume five and it would have been fine.
There are a lot of things I don't like but I don't call them bad, I recognize that they are good. There is a lot of music, for example, that I can't get into but I believe is technically good. There is no reason for me to call into question other people's tastes and it's not an argument I want to be responsible for starting.
am i allowed to call twilight bad?
i think there are some things wrong with the comic. its demographic is not me, but aside from that i already said i feel that the overloaded, directed references thing is lame- it's, in my opinion, lame. it's treehousey, whether it's about being a young, music loving, game playing liberal person in america or whether it's about guns and mixed martial arts. i'm not saying anyone's a dumbass for disagreeing with me.
i'm really not insulting anyone (except, i guess, the author a little bit) here, so i don't know why i'm not allowed to say what i dislike about this book. i guess because it's popular here?
You can say what you dislike about the comic, but what I am saying is you came off not as giving your opinion but rather as trying to state a sort of objective truth. If you think the comic is meritorious but falls outside of your taste then this was a misunderstanding and we're in agreement but that wasn't how I perceived your posts.
Anyway, regarding Twilight, let us delve deep into that. This is a fuzzy subject because it relies on a few different things in order to determine whether or not something actually is bad. It's unreliable and most likely arbitrary but it's all we got. I think Twilight is bad. Now if a lot of people here actually liked it what would I do? That depends on what they like about it. If I think they like all of the stuff I find morally reprehensible well then I'll probably argue with them about it but if they are just innocents who like trashy romance novels then I would probably leave them alone especially because if so many people here liked it it would make for a lot of arguments happening often and that is lame.
But yes, how do we determine if something is bad? It's really difficult and it will be arbitrary. It relies a lot on consensus and the accumulation of evidence against it. If there was a consensus and a lot of evidence against Scott Pilgrim being good then I would have to acknowledge that and consider it a guilty pleasure or something. I mean Dragonball Z is probably bad but I like it anyway because it's a part of my childhood and it's absurdity amuses me. These aren't thoughts that I have developed greatly so more discussion is necessary in order to refine this thinking.
Sarksus on
0
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
I don't know anything about fearing DMs. That shit is just hurtful is all. Dungeon Mastering is fucking work and you gotta appease 4-6 nerds.
An impossible task.
And they never pay attention to your backstory!
I ran a single city campaign for a while, the party never left the city except for a couple of forays out into the woods. They really got into the backstory.
My group has actually been thinking about moving into just doing big individual encounters for a while instead of campaigns, since none of us ever care about backstory.
Smitten is the past participle of smite. Smote is just the simple past conjugation. Most verbs have the same form for both, but smite is an old word and it ain't got time for that homogenous shit.
but seriously couldn't all natural laws be broken down into a tautology?
I don't think this is true. But that depends on what exactly you mean by natural law.
Say, Boyle's law
I don't think Boyle's laws are tautological.
edit: maybe they would be if you defined 'gas' to mean 'matter that acts according to boyle's laws'. But I don't think that's how it works.
This is why I asked, because I don't know. A few of them can be broken down into tautologies, but that is my least favorite of the "invalidation of arguments" games that people play
No, that it doesn't make testable claims because you can't falsify a tautology.
It is the same tautology by which entropy functions. Which means if that were the case, we'd have to throw out thermodynamics too.
At any rate, while you can't falsify the tautology, you can easily falsify natural selection by proving that it doesn't produce the most likely thing to exist.
I don't understand how entropy is tautologic, unless ALL natural laws are also tautologies
which they may be...
Entropy occurs because the state in which there is are the most possible microstates that fulfill the macrostate is the most likely to exist. It's a matter of probability, which is to say that the state with the highest entropy is the most likely to exist. Which can be broken down to the same tautology as natural selection.
Alright, I get you
See, the thing I've been trying to get at lately, but I just frankly don't have enough training or am smart enough to do so, is that selection and entropy are two sides of the same coin. Entropy relies on probability to create a macrostate with more microstates, selections relies on probability to cull microstates and create a macrostate with fewer microstates.
Which is close to saying something wrong like "selection attempts to generates complexity" (false) by trying to say something like "selection must necessarily generate complexity". But I don't know if that's true or not I'm just speculating.
I wish I had more reading material on the subject at hand because I'm sure very smart people have already said very smart things about it that I don't know.
I may agree with this, but I need to think about it.
Someone figured out how to play Alien Swarm in first person instead of third. Only drawback is there isn't a ceiling in the game, it's just white void.
but seriously couldn't all natural laws be broken down into a tautology?
I don't think this is true. But that depends on what exactly you mean by natural law.
Say, Boyle's law
I don't think Boyle's laws are tautological.
edit: maybe they would be if you defined 'gas' to mean 'matter that acts according to boyle's laws'. But I don't think that's how it works.
This is why I asked, because I don't know. A few of them can be broken down into tautologies, but that is my least favorite of the "invalidation of arguments" games that people play
It is possible that the fundamental rules of the universe are axiomatic [that is, unprovable], but axiomatic isn't quite the same as tautological. And I don't think Boyle's law is quite that fundamental. I mean, Boyle proved it.
An axiom is an unprovable truth.
A tautology is a necessary truth, otherwise known as a truth by definition.
Hachface on
0
YamiNoSenshiA point called ZIn the complex planeRegistered Userregular
Wow. There actually isn't a Lush store near you. Not even in a Macy's. Sad!
Let me put it this way. I live in arguably the most "progressive" and "up to date" city in the state, and I was surprised that there was a Play N Trade video store.
Not a big fan of void rays, tbh. Everyone expects them.
4 gate, e'ryday!
yeah you'll rape more than enough people with 4 gate. I hit a point where I couldn't beat it, then got over the hump and advanced a bit in my league, and then hit another wall. it's such a strong open.
Okay. Jesus fucking Christ. I stand fucking corrected. I am sorry that "smitten" also means something else that does not mean what you were intending it to mean and it was the first thing that came to my mind. You can put your dictionaries the fuck away now.
Someone figured out how to play Alien Swarm in first person instead of third. Only drawback is there isn't a ceiling in the game, it's just white void.
Come to think of it, I regret DMing for the people I do DM. Most of them are children, but it's the fucking adult who is always accusing me of just trying to kill them outright and cheat. Fuck you, man. I'm working hard to give you a challenging and engaging experience. Stop shitting on me! If I wanted to murder you and all the other characters they'd already be dead!
There is no skill in just killing characters. Or even a TPK. Assuming you're taking an adversarial approach, then the real skill is in breaking the players wills. The Tomb of Horrors isn't scary simply because opening the door can wipe the group, it's scary because by the end of it, the players are a paranoid mess.
I don't normally subscribe to the adversarial school of DMing. But busting Winky's balls? This I am all over.
I want to be clear right here, though, my thought process is not at all based around on how hard I can challenge my PCs. If you are looking for an adversary in me, you're not going to get one.
My entire purpose is based around the idea of "How many cool things can I get them to do?"
In designing all of this stuff, I was trying to think of ways I could set up a situation for you guys to do something really bad ass.
So naturally it's a little upsetting when you guys really want to subvert all of my big flashing arrows because you think you're cleverly undermining my challenges.
It's like if I designed this awesome bike ramp with fireworks that shoot out when you leap off it hoping that you'd hit it and then start doing flips and mad tricks and shit, and instead you go around it because you think what I meant to do was have a pit with spikes on the other side of the ramp.
Winky on
0
SarksusPaul Atreides holding a pugRegistered Userregular
Okay. Jesus fucking Christ. I stand fucking corrected. I am sorry that "smitten" also means something else that does not mean what you were intending it to mean and it was the first thing that came to my mind. You can put your dictionaries the fuck away now.
Okay. Jesus fucking Christ. I stand fucking corrected. I am sorry that "smitten" also means something else that does not mean what you were intending it to mean and it was the first thing that came to my mind. You can put your dictionaries the fuck away now.
Okay. Jesus fucking Christ. I stand fucking corrected. I am sorry that "smitten" also means something else that does not mean what you were intending it to mean and it was the first thing that came to my mind. You can put your dictionaries the fuck away now.
don't let them get to you. eventually everyone slips up and gets smitten by a thousand neckbeards.
edit: so slow
thisisntwally on
#someshit
0
SarksusPaul Atreides holding a pugRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
We're not talking about Scott Pilgrim anymore.
Now we are delving into the world of deciding what isbad.
Sarksus on
0
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
Ellie if you can't roll with geeks being pedantic about word usage you need to grow some thicker skin
I don't know anything about fearing DMs. That shit is just hurtful is all. Dungeon Mastering is fucking work and you gotta appease 4-6 nerds.
An impossible task.
And they never pay attention to your backstory!
I ran a single city campaign for a while, the party never left the city except for a couple of forays out into the woods. They really got into the backstory.
My group has actually been thinking about moving into just doing big individual encounters for a while instead of campaigns, since none of us ever care about backstory.
Going back to the roots of the hobby.
One thing I've noticed from watching people play 4e D&D is that it's much closer to a tabletop minatures wargame than I remember from my experiences playing AD&D as a nerdling.
I assume it's a combo of returning to the roots of D&D and a desire to sell more D&D product.
Edit: I also don't get the whole adversarial relationship between players and DM thing.
Lawndart on
0
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
hehehe I just went through the daily show thread to see when it comes back on air, and there's tons of nerd rage about the last interview jon agreeing with the chick, saying that science and religion are not at odds.
People were shouting "FUCK YOU!" at their tvs.
All, the simple pleasures of life.
Podly on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofRegistered Userregular
Posts
I didn't say you will, I said you can.
from the argument 'just say it's good but you don't like it' it's not unreasonable to follow with 'just say it's bad but you like it'.
not that every person necessarily holds opinions like that.
Philistines.
Your job is not to please the 4-6 nerds. It is to strike the fear of God into their hearts and then hopefully find a way for them to survive.
Note: Their survival is optional.
You can say what you dislike about the comic, but what I am saying is you came off not as giving your opinion but rather as trying to state a sort of objective truth. If you think the comic is meritorious but falls outside of your taste then this was a misunderstanding and we're in agreement but that wasn't how I perceived your posts.
Anyway, regarding Twilight, let us delve deep into that. This is a fuzzy subject because it relies on a few different things in order to determine whether or not something actually is bad. It's unreliable and most likely arbitrary but it's all we got. I think Twilight is bad. Now if a lot of people here actually liked it what would I do? That depends on what they like about it. If I think they like all of the stuff I find morally reprehensible well then I'll probably argue with them about it but if they are just innocents who like trashy romance novels then I would probably leave them alone especially because if so many people here liked it it would make for a lot of arguments happening often and that is lame.
But yes, how do we determine if something is bad? It's really difficult and it will be arbitrary. It relies a lot on consensus and the accumulation of evidence against it. If there was a consensus and a lot of evidence against Scott Pilgrim being good then I would have to acknowledge that and consider it a guilty pleasure or something. I mean Dragonball Z is probably bad but I like it anyway because it's a part of my childhood and it's absurdity amuses me. These aren't thoughts that I have developed greatly so more discussion is necessary in order to refine this thinking.
Going back to the roots of the hobby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl9sTqzLblY
Indeed. Here is a perfect analogy:
write
written
wrote
smite
smitten
smote
i thought it was just a joke
This is why I asked, because I don't know. A few of them can be broken down into tautologies, but that is my least favorite of the "invalidation of arguments" games that people play
I may agree with this, but I need to think about it.
Someone figured out how to play Alien Swarm in first person instead of third. Only drawback is there isn't a ceiling in the game, it's just white void.
It is possible that the fundamental rules of the universe are axiomatic [that is, unprovable], but axiomatic isn't quite the same as tautological. And I don't think Boyle's law is quite that fundamental. I mean, Boyle proved it.
An axiom is an unprovable truth.
A tautology is a necessary truth, otherwise known as a truth by definition.
I saw this and immediately tried to click the Like button.
But this is not Facebook.
So I will settle for, "You will always be on my Liked Forumer List for your excellent taste in music."
Not a big fan of void rays, tbh. Everyone expects them.
4 gate, e'ryday!
Let me put it this way. I live in arguably the most "progressive" and "up to date" city in the state, and I was surprised that there was a Play N Trade video store.
Hell I was surprised there was a Whole Foods
i thought that was his girlfriend and was all... man, that girls a dog...
yeah you'll rape more than enough people with 4 gate. I hit a point where I couldn't beat it, then got over the hump and advanced a bit in my league, and then hit another wall. it's such a strong open.
oooo i like this
I want to be clear right here, though, my thought process is not at all based around on how hard I can challenge my PCs. If you are looking for an adversary in me, you're not going to get one.
My entire purpose is based around the idea of "How many cool things can I get them to do?"
In designing all of this stuff, I was trying to think of ways I could set up a situation for you guys to do something really bad ass.
So naturally it's a little upsetting when you guys really want to subvert all of my big flashing arrows because you think you're cleverly undermining my challenges.
It's like if I designed this awesome bike ramp with fireworks that shoot out when you leap off it hoping that you'd hit it and then start doing flips and mad tricks and shit, and instead you go around it because you think what I meant to do was have a pit with spikes on the other side of the ramp.
I'm smitten for you Ellie.
In every way possible.
Except now I apparently have a meeting in 31 minutes 20 minutes away. Oops
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I'm going to stab you.
don't let them get to you. eventually everyone slips up and gets smitten by a thousand neckbeards.
edit: so slow
Now we are delving into the world of deciding what is bad.
The pain has now radiated to my inner ear.
One thing I've noticed from watching people play 4e D&D is that it's much closer to a tabletop minatures wargame than I remember from my experiences playing AD&D as a nerdling.
I assume it's a combo of returning to the roots of D&D and a desire to sell more D&D product.
Edit: I also don't get the whole adversarial relationship between players and DM thing.
People were shouting "FUCK YOU!" at their tvs.
All, the simple pleasures of life.
Alternatively you can stop hanging out with nerds.
I highly recommend the alternative.
Roll for initiative vs. stroke
*rimshot*