Total posts: 4,140
-->
@Ayyantu
90% of the time when someone tells a joke or uses sarcasm, he completely misses it. I'm beginning to see your point of view, though. I can easily see him misreading your behavior, but I'm definitely not ruling him out.
Created:
-->
@Ayyantu
I'm not even going to guess why Intelligence reads your behavior the way he does. I just know that he has a habit of misreading people's behavior.
Created:
-->
@Ayyantu
How many scum is normal in 12 players?
Two or three.
Speed/Intelligence is plausible team.
Speed is always plausibly scum until proven otherwise.
Created:
-->
@Ayyantu
It's an unnatural perception for a townie to have.
How to put it? There's nothing unusual about Intelligence having an unnatural perception of other's behavior.
On the other hand, you might be right.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
How about you pressure him like Danielle and I keep ----ing telling town to do?
But why? You haven't given me any reason to pressure him. If you give me a good reason, I'll help pressure him. It's not useful to tell people to do something but refuse to explain why.
Created:
-->
@Ayyantu
Because being wrong isn't usually scummy.
Created:
-->
@Ayyantu
I certainly didn't share that perception. I thought you handled the pressure fairly calmly.
Created:
-->
@Ayyantu
Why do you think that?
To be clear, I use lean scum to mean that there's a higher chance that person is scum than that other people are scum. Without very strong evidence to the contrary, it's statistically likely that any given player is town.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why do you think Intelligence is scum? I can't get a solid read on him, so I'm curious about your reasons.
Created:
I completely forgot Crocodile. Null, I suppose. I might have to look into his posts in more detail later.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I know no one's active at the same time you are, but it would still help if you would give us more to work with when you are on. Post your reads or some analysis or something.
Created:
Reads:
Lean town:
Danielle: Her frustration at the slow progress of the game seemed genuine. I've never seen her as scum, so it might be foolish to town read her. Still, she seems town to me.
Greyparrot: He's playing to his town meta. Early claim, seemingly random, unexplained votes. Fairly typical behavior.
Null:
WaterPhoenix: He posted a lot of fluff early, but started posting more substance. I haven't seen much to indicate his affiliation.
Intelligence: He hasn't been very active, probably due to time zone differences. I haven't seen much to indicate his affiliation either.
Ayyantu: I didn't like their early FOSs or suggestion of a mass claim. I did like their calm response to pressure. I haven't seen them play before, so I'll leave them at null for now.
Lunatic: As usual, my gut tells me he's town. As usual, I know better than to trust my gut with Lunatic.
Speed: He said he'd be inactive, and he has been inactive. Nothing to go on.
Supa: He's been FOSing Ayyantu a lot. I see where he's coming from. At the same time, some of his logic is just...weird. If it was anyone other than Supa, that would be suspicious. But for Supa, that honestly doesn't seem too unusual. Still, I'm keeping a closer eye on him than the other nulls.
Lean scum:
Bear: I know townies can change their minds, but he's been absolutely all over the place. Thinking Ayyantu was scum, thinking Ayyantu isn't scum but should still be lynched as anti-town, thinking Ayyantu shouldn't be lynched. In one page, he went from listing a bunch of people he thought leaned scum to recommending a vtnl to voting Intelligence for a claim. I change my mind a lot myself, but that's really flip-floppy. His other behavior isn't giving me good vibes, either. It's not a strong read, but it easily the best lead I've got right now.
VTL BearMan
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
VTL Sir because he can't be read
I suppose that's a complement.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
And Trafalgar's the one everyone laughed at. I'll be eating humble pie, though. I laughed at them too.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.Matthew 5:17 Jesus changed no law and he made that clear. And he didn't relieve anyone of their duty towards god commands either especially Christians!
I already explained how you're taking that out of context. Reasserting your original claim without addressing my refutation is not a sound method of argumentation.
That is exactly what you are doing.
No. I provided clear evidence from Scripture to back my case. Again, you are merely reasserting your original claim without addressing my refutation.
Are we to ignore then what peter says? Acts 5:29 “We must obey God rather than human beings"!
No, and nothing I said remotely implies that.
Then why single out these deaths for homosexuality from other deaths for sins inherited.
Because homosexuality is apparently serious enough to warrant that.
Is all you are doing is attempting - with irrelevant verses - to defend the indefeasible.
No. Furthermore, in order for something to even require a defense, there has to some argument attacking that. You haven't presented any. You're simply presuming it's wrong a priori without justification.
BS. Your god does not relieve Christians of their duty of carrying out his commands under any circumstances .
Scripture very clearly states that the former regulation, the law, has been set aside. You can ignore that, shout about it, insult me over it, whatever you like, but you can't change that fact. The Levitical Law does not apply to Christians, and Scripture makes that very clear.
Jesus himself commands that we are to obey gods/his commands not mans. You know this is fact. If it isn't then you have a fkn great problem with those verses you keep posting don't you? Because they would contradict what god Jesus himself commands.
It doesn't give me any problems whatsoever. Firstly, Jesus did not say what you're trying to make Him say. You took those verses out of context, and you simply ignored it when I proved that. Secondly, the entire Bible is God's word, not just the text in red.
Romans 13:1-2. Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.You see. It is easily done to pull out a supporting verse and one that is clearly relevant to my argument and contradictory to those that you believe support your own argument.
If you'd read even one or two verses further, you'd know that the authority mentioned in that passage is the government and the passage is about paying taxes and rebelling against the government, so that really doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. In fact, you can even see that in the verses you quoted: "the governing authorities."
And lets not forget Acts 5:29 “We must obey God rather than human beings!And lets not also for get , that, as you clearly state above "According to Christianity, Jesus is God" #58
The entire Bible is God's word, not just the text in red. You can choose to ignore that, but you'll be arguing against a religion I don't believe in (i.e. a version of Christianity in which only the text in red is God's word).
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Why? It's not a vote to lynch. It's a vote for a claim.
Ok.
DP1 requires players like me to move the game along by voting so players like you can participate by questioning why. Otherwise nothing happens. You're welcome :)
Sorry. I know I'm not very useful at moving the game along.
At this point there's been 100+ additional posts and you still haven't determined whose claim you want? How is that helpful? What exactly would compel you to vote for someone's claim DP1?
To be quite honest, I'm not sure that I've even heard about trying to get someone's claim in DP1 or why that's useful. Or if I have, I didn't recognize it as such. I usually use DP1 to vote for whoever I find scummiest. Maybe that's suboptimal. I don't know. I have enough experience to not be a noob but not enough to be very good.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
According to Christianity, Jesus is God, so He would be an authority on God's preferred pronouns. And even if you take the position that He was just a prophet, that would still put Him in a position to know God's preferred pronouns.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
According to the bible, God has no gender
That is true.
the authors of the bible assumed god was a male due to patriarchy, we actually have no idea whether god is a male or female, therefore as in their characteristics are what the bible also defines as motherly, i think she is the closest we can get to god's preferred pronoun.
That is not. Jesus explicitly refers to God as the Father multiple times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Thanks for the answer. I think I learned more about your position by arguing with you than I would have by asking questions. Thank you also for being polite and engaging with me. I understand your position a lot better now.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Why are you voting for Intelligence?Why are you not voting for anyone?
Because I haven't made up my mind about who to vote for yet.
Why are you voting for Intelligence?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
She has no moral authority, therefore she commanding murder similar to a mob boss
You could at least refer to God by His preferred pronouns.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Why ever not?
"because Christ fulfilled the law with His death (see Romans 3-4 and Hebrews 7)."
Romans 3:20
"20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."
You can see in this verse that no one can be justified through following the law.
Romans 3:21-22a
"21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."
You can see in these verses that we are justified by faith, not by the law.
Hebrews 7:11-12
"11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also." (emphasis mine)
Here is a statement that the law must be changed.
Hebrews 7:18-19
"18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God."
And here it is said explicitly. The former regulation - the law - has been set aside. Christians are not under the old covenant of the law, but under the new covenant - the better hope.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.Matthew 5:17
This is why Tradesecret is continually telling you to put things in context. When you take verses out of context, you can make them say almost anything. But let's see what happens when that verse is put in context.
Matthew 5:17-18
"17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (emphasis mine)
Christ here is saying that He will fulfill the law and that it won't pass away until everything is accomplished. He fulfilled the law and accomplished everything on the cross. So it would seem that He isn't saying what you're trying to make Him say.
Is this the typical biblical rewrite we have come to expect from Christians trying to defend the indefensible. Try reading Leviticus 20:13" abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Your gods command is clear.
I have read it. In fact, I referenced it in my post when I said that it is true that homosexuality was a capital crime under the law. However, I am not rewriting the Bible when I say that verse doesn't apply to Christians. In fact, as demonstrated by the verse from Romans and Hebrews, I'm reaching that conclusion based on things that the Bible says rather explicitly.
This is typical playing down the punishment that simply doesn't fit the crime?
It doesn't fit the crime according to you. You are not an objective lawgiver. You are not a supreme authority on justice. You have no objective laws or a supreme authority to appeal to. Thus, it doesn't make an ounce of difference whether you think it fits the crime or not. According to God, who is an objective lawgiver and a supreme authority on justice, every sin is deserving of death.
This is you simply saying were are all sinners and will all going to die and that we are all in this together while ignoring the bleeding' obvious difference THAT one death is INTENTIONALY terminated before time while another can live a long healthy life.
I ignored it so much that I even mentioned that homosexuality was a capital crime under the law in my post. Every sin deserves death. At the same time, some sins are worse than others. You're free to disagree that homosexuality is a serious sin, but, unless you have an objective reason to disagree, your opinion doesn't mean much.
You are just another arrogant Christian that believes anyone not religious is simply backward and uneducated without morals and principles or integrity that won't see the obvious flaw in your stupid argument.
Meh.
Yes, it singles homosexuals out. It singles them out for the death penalty. i.e an early death. There is nothing misleading about it.
It also tells us that everyone's sins deserve death. If God wanted to, He could kill us all and would be justified in doing so.
We are talking execution here... Most of us reading here understand perfectly well that we are not talking murder, but execution, the taking of ones life prematurely.
According to the OP, we're talking about murder, so that's what I replied to.
And what if your god told you to "execute" someone for being say.... homosexual? As per his commands at Leviticus 20:13 . Or even Leviticus 20:9.
You mean those commands that the Bible explicitly says don't apply to Christians, because the former regulation has been set aside?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So god has never commanded death?
That isn't what I said. I said that God cannot command murder. Death and murder are not the same thing.
I suppose you've never read the old testament
I've read the entire Bible cover to cover multiple times and continue to read it cover to cover on a regular basis.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Hey! I have a meaningful quote! Miracles DO happen!
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Why are you voting for Intelligence?
Created:
For scum to NK power roles, that is.
Created:
Whatever a handicapped vanilla is, regular vanillas shouldn't claim, as that would just make it easier to NK power roles.
Created:
-->
@BearMan
What's a handicapped vanilla?
Created:
-->
@BearMan
Ayyantu is kinda weird like someone said "noob" Intelligence. Analyzing his behavior will hard and therefore he will rest as a null for me.
That was me that said that.
Created:
The problem here is that noobs are often unpredictable. I kind of agree with Danielle, though. He does seem to have some experience, and he has said he's played before. I doubt he's an alt. I suspect him a bit, but not a lot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
It seems you have the same problem that is just repeated, or at least as I interpret it:If someone does not care about net positive, then it doesn't give people obligations
Correct. That is the problem I see in your system. I won't bother with the specific examples because they all boil down to this point.
It honestly doesn't matter if they care about it or not, an moral obligation is based on an ought. Not what people believe. If your response is then to say that it is subjective and not objective and therefore what authority do you have then, is also not a valid response, as the ought itself is the logical condition. This is true of all moral systems. You are human and you have a basis on which you are harmed or hurt, one should do what maximizes that as a factor of biological truth as well as what is most philosophically true. It's kind of like objecting to a syllogism because there are people who would misinterpret that syllogism, it does not logically follow.
But why is human harm or benefit the standard? Why should it apply to everyone? If I'm understanding you correctly, you're applying this standard to everyone everywhere every time. It seems to me that you're taking a subjective standard and making it essentially objective.
The one other issue I have is that there doesn't seem to be any moral dimension here. Yes, it's logical for people to do what benefits them. But why is human benefit good?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
It is the principal of the claim - you are essentially saying that due to the fact that you can do it - it is justified that others do it
More like "I can do it, but others don't know that I do it. Thus, they don't know that they're justified in doing it to me, so there are no negative effects for me."
Psychologically perhaps, but that does not negate the physical harms of being anti-social such as increased aggression, restless sleep, etc...
It doesn't negate the physical harms. It turns them into a positive because the masochist enjoys physical harms.
Yes but this is based on what is logically justified - all of these could be simple solved with a better standard which is also subjective - but there is no need.
The tyrant in this case enjoys it. No need is required.
you would still be encouraging others to do the same which would be overall net negative
Except that they can't do it to me, so there's no negative.
suppose their is someone powerful enough to hurt you, then you can't. And it is unlikely for you to be powerful enough where people can't hurt you, its unrealistic, and not likely to happen.Yes, but they are still encouraging harm to themselves, they would be better off in the long run without harm to their goals or practices, if that is the case, a power like that, then people can harm them in more than just physical ways.
There are people more powerful than Kim Jong Un, but he gets away with harming others without any harm coming to him. It is a realistic scenario, although it only applies to a few people.
it is literally still logically unjustified.
The logic doesn't matter to the tyrant in this scenario. They enjoy harming others, and it brings no harm to themselves.
Because that would be assuming a thing that we have proven false to be correct, because then it would encourage the way of thinking that we should breed every single athletic person until there are less and less people, thereby doing more than just harm to you, but to the society that benefits you too, which would be even greater harm.
You seem to be missing the point of the hypothetical. Such situations might be unlikely, and the specific examples I bring up might not work. But that isn't the point. The point is whether or not you system would work in such a scenario.
They are still wrong to believe it.
But they don't care that they're wrong. Your argument here only holds for rational people who are interested in their own benefit. However, there are plenty of irrational people out there.
Regardless this doesn't prove that my moral system is flawed, but that not everybody will follow it, but this is true of literally everything.
Not quite. It is true that there are people who will violate any moral system. However, your particular system ties obligation to net benefit. If someone doesn't care about that, then I don't see how your system gives such a person any obligations. Other systems don't have that particular problem. For instance, in most systems of objective morality, immoral actions are immoral no matter what. In certain forms of nihilism, nothing is morally good or morally bad.
Fundamentally speaking, either you have some measure of worth or you literally die.
That's only an issue if everyone cares about dying. Take a suicide bomber for instance. The bomber actually wants to die. There are no negatives for him when he carries out the bombing.
Again this applies to all moral systems. Not something you can stop. Now can we stop this from happening more often? Yes, but that still doesn't make it valid ciriticism, for example: people literally do that whenever they believe objective morality to be true.
That's not the point I'm making. I know you can't stop people from being immoral. "However, your particular system ties obligation to net benefit. If someone doesn't care about that, then I don't see how your system gives such a person any obligations."
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
if you knew it to be your god commanding you, would you murder me? According to your answer no.
According to my answer, it's an impossible situation. God cannot command people to murder because it would violate His character. It's akin to asking me whether I would believe that 2+2=5 if that was proven to be the case. There is no correct answer because the situation is itself impossible.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The Bible does not say we should murder gay people, or anyone else. It specifically commands us not to murder. It is true that, under the Levitical Law, homosexuality was a capital crime. However, the Levitical Law does not apply to Christians because Christ fulfilled the law with His death (see Romans 3-4 and Hebrews 7). This does not mean that homosexuality isn't a sin, although it does mean that we aren't commanded to execute gay people.
More fundamentally, however, we all deserve death according to the Bible. If you read Romans, you can see this explained in the first few chapters. In Romans 3, we learn that everyone is a sinner. In Romans 6, we learn that the penalty for sin is death. In short, you deserve death. So do I. So does everyone. Your question is somewhat misleading because it singles out gay people. The Bible doesn't single anyone out; it tells us that we're all guilty and deserving of death.
Another related point is that the Bible condemns extrajudicial killings. Thus, if I were to hear some voice tell me to go murder that person, I would immediately know that it wasn't from God because God condemns murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Also, because that fundamentally doesn't work. That will never be the case.
Ah. I was wondering if that was the argument you were making. I don't think it's a sound one, though.
Because if you do something which harms another because it net benefits you, you are giving others the same right if that situation occurs, meaning that they can hurt you.
I see your point here. Reciprocity is a valid principle. However, there are a few problems that could arise.
1. Suppose no one knew what I did. In that case, reciprocity fails because no one knows that they have the right to hurt me.
2. Suppose I'm a masochist who actually enjoys it when people hurt me, so I hurt them because I know it will make them hurt me, which I enjoy.
3. Suppose I have enough power that they can't hurt me, and I can simply enforce my will.
The third case is the most interesting. If a person has enough temporal power that they can harm people without fear of retaliation and don't care about what happens after their death (something along the lines of the Kim dynasty), then they don't have to fear either retaliation, because they are powerful enough to prevent it, or long-term failure, because what happens after they die is of no interest to them. While there are obviously limits - starting a war that could bring down their regime, for instance - such a person would nevertheless have considerable leeway to harm others without bringing any significant harm to themselves.
The second thing is literally a supposition
It was a hypothetical. It wasn't meant to have a lot of weight; it was meant to examine the logic of your ideas rather than their practical application. However, I could give it practical weight. For instance, we might discover that certain forms of eugenics are beneficial to society because they remove people who consume more than they contribute. That could benefit society. Why would that be wrong?
There is also a more fundamental issue with your argument. While people have an incentive to not bring harm upon themselves, that isn't an obligation. It's enough to convince most rational people. But what of irrational people? How do you handle someone who just doesn't care about harm to themselves? Your argument establishes rational incentives to not do this thing we call immoral or to do that thing we call moral. You've shown that it's generally beneficial to act morally. However, rational incentives and moral obligations are not the same thing. You can set up human benefit as harm as the standard, but what's to stop someone from just saying "I don't care" and doing whatever they like? You can't appeal to harm and benefit in that case because that doesn't matter to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Because fundamentally speaking - they shouldn't be doing something according to only their pleasure, not if that's what they value - because the net benefit one receives from valuing other's pleasures to your own pleasure far outweighs the benefits one receives from only valuing your own pleasure, hence society and law.
In most cases, yes. However, I'm asking about situations when that isn't the case. When the net benefit from valuing one's own pleasure does outweigh the net benefit of valuing other's pleasure, why should that individual or that society be obligated to value other's pleasure over their own?
To answer your question - we are doing what is most beneficial and logically valid, Sparta might have been existent, but they were not stable nor at their maximum happiness, with regards to my points, they would have lasted far longer if they did value morality as I have postulated, the same goes for all of them, as whenever societies start to do more and more things which violates their principals the closer it gets to collapse.
That's a valid argument (and also the argument I would have made). However, we don't know what brings maximum happiness. Suppose we discover that that the method for achieving maximum happiness and survivability requires doing things that we consider immoral. If that were the case, would we still be obligated not to do those things that we consider immoral?
Created:
-->
@Ayyantu
About how many games did you play back when you played forum mafia?
Created:
-->
@Vader
You could be right. I'll have to think about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
How do you defend this enormous gish gallop of contradicting progressive beliefs, none of which you have ever endorsed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Humans are social creatures as objective fact, and murdering for the vast amount of them is inherently psychologically damaging, but for those it isn't it will still cause harm, for example:-Cause them to spiral further and further into anti-social behavior-High probability of radically increased violence-High probability of them hurting each other,
Probably so. However, a psychologically damaged society can still be successful. Sparta (and I think Rome as well, but I'm not as sure about them) did some seriously messed up things to a lot of their infants, but it was a powerful city-state for centuries. There are countless examples of societies that continually perpetrated terrible crimes like slavery, conquest, genocides, other mass slaughters, various forms of bigotry, and nearly anything else you can think of that have still been powerful and successful for long periods of time. So if all those crimes don't seem to make them less successful, what obligation do they have to stop?
The problem I'm trying to get at here is that you're tying moral obligation to human pleasure or welfare. However, that gives individuals and societies obligations only to themselves. If circumstances arise in which they are helped by harming others, then why are they morally obligated to help or at least not harm the others rather than harming others for their own benefit?
Created:
-->
@Vader
Maybe. He seems a little more like a noob version of Intelligence to me (no offense to Intelligence).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That seems to work for our society, but it doesn't work for what I'm asking. I'm proposing a society in which genocide is not punished but promoted. Not only that, but the society as a whole would be helped by the genocide of the minority. In that case, why would they be obligated to spare the minority?
Created:
Posted in:
The question is asking for what the question is asking. It asks for itself and is its own answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Because we discover and apply oughts from what is true objectively, because it is true that genocide and harm objectively are negative to humans, we, as humans, ought not to do things which would hurt us.
Ok. Let's suppose that, in the scenario I described, the majority of people would be helped by the genocide of the minority. Why would they be obligated to the minority? Why should the harm or benefit of the minority bother the majority?
To boil it down a little more simply, if we use human benefit or pleasure as the standard, what obligation does anyone have to help others unless it also helps themselves? And if harming others helps them, why should they be obligated to not harm others? In fact, if it helps them to harm others, why couldn't we even say that they are obligated to harm others because it helps them to do so?
Created:
-->
@Speedrace
Sir always plays both sides of the fence
I suppose I do.
Created:
-->
@Ayyantu
It's within town's best interest to avoid mislynches. Thus, I will defend someone from what I perceive as bad logic even if I don't townread them.
Created:
-->
@Ayyantu
I don't know. There are only four pages so far, and less than a day has passed. Unless there's something obviously scummy, it will take me a while before I start developing useful reads.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Interesting. I agree that it is true that genocide would impact people in a negative way.
However, what difference does it make if it affects people in a negative way? Why is treating people in a positive way good? It may be true that people like to be treated positively, but how does that generate an obligation to treat them positively?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
If the vast majority of the world approved of genocide, would that make it okay?
That's probably a cliche question, but oh well.
Created:
-->
@Ayyantu
Water claims scum, then acts surprised that a "noob" would vote him? It's fake.
Yes. It's meant to be fake. That's the joke.
You think Water is town?
I have no idea. I just don't think that's a good reason to suspect him.
Created: