Total posts: 502
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
it depends if him holding the pen is contingent on someone else's ability to see it. If you're assuming empirical epistemology, then so long as anyone can detect the pen via any means, it can be known that he is holding the pen.
It's a trick question though because it's conflating ability to know with true justified belief. Something can be the way it is without anyone knowing it in other words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Hayd
you've come at a rather heated time in this sites early history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I used the religion forum too. I'm pointing out however that the claim that members are hiding their DDO identity behind new names is so wrong I can only assume it was made by someone who never made any attempt to interact with anyone outside that subforum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
None taken. I'm pointing out that nobody is hiding behind new identities here. Your accusation is false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I see no need to hand out labels like "irrelevant" to our fellow members and human beings
as someone who has had long conversations with Ethang on DDO I can attest that this won't offend him, and it's also accurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Neon sign saying you're largely disconnected from the rest of DDO. This is how it is though, the religion forum never really did interact with any of the other forums. You were your own island and now that you're seeing the rest of us for the first time we're unfamiliar faces. Everyone here however knows each other and knows the religious users. You know other religious users and nobody beyond that.Say what you want about Ethang. At least he is using the same user name and not hiding who he was at DDO.
That's really the only way I can explain the fact that you think there are people hiding who they were on DDO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
questioning validity is asking if they do measure innate cognitive ability. Questioning reliability is asking if they measure innate cognitive ability consistently. Despite the wording, a metric which is valid has to first be reliable. IQ tests are known to be valid, and they are stable across your entire life. So yes I would suggest they are reliable.What I dispute is that they measure innate ability reliably
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
They are comparable. Australia is #7, USA is #9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burglary#Burglaries_by_country
You're suggesting that the number of guns in the USA would mean nobody wants to risk a burglary. Below the United states however are all countries where gun ownership is very low. There's no correlation here between gun ownership and burglary rate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
the block only stops you from linking the name. It means RM won't be able to flood a notification box with his links like he's done to several members. The actual ability to have discourse is unaffected.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
home invasions happen in both Australia and the US independently of gun laws. It doesn't make sense to say you'd rather have one over the other because you already have both.I'd rather have the overhyped and rare "mass" shootings here than the chronic underhyped home invasions that occur in Australia. There is no Utopia Linate
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
we can't prove intent either. RM for example thinks Zeichen's threats were real threats and that she's a deranged psychopath when imo he's miles off. It's completely misguided to talk about intent imho when all we can deal with is behaviour.
1. We stipulate the terms of an RO explicitly
2. We punish violations of the terms
Since 1 is made clear to all parties, 2 will follow naturally and easily. There's no issue to be had as far as I can see here.
Created:
Posted in:
The RO point I don't really understand tbh, because it's a non issue once you tell the members involved what they aren't allowed to do. If there's some nuance here that I've missed please point it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
An RO is undefined insofar as you leave it undefined. The ToS does not exist so bringing it up is a moot point. Moreover DDO had issues with ToS interpretation, as each rule was itself open to interpretation which is why Airmax had to go through so much effort to make his conduct thread to explain exactly what was meant. An RO is no different, it also needs defining.
All that's an aside to the fact that it's the same for both members who are bound by one. Whether or not this site uses an RO is not a major concern to me, so long as it's implemented equally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
The ToS disproportionately affects everyone. All people, mental illness or not vary immensely in their innate ability to exercise self control and pro-social behaviour. If you think RM is unfairly burdened by RO then you must concede that he is similarly unfairly burdened by the ToS since both demand similar levels of self control. He's shown an inability to abide by DDO's ToS (this site doesn't have one), so why do you not claim that the ToS is unfair?>Wanting to implement measures that such individuals are disproportionately susceptible to, so as to create a method by which removal can be fast tracked for offenses that otherwise might not be violations of ToS themselves
Literally he's in complete control of himself he does not need to be treated differently to any other member.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
There doesn't need to be any double standard for RM here for any reason, RO or otherwise. A ToS requires users to exercise self control in a wide variety of ways, and an enforced RO is hardly a form of self control beyond the capability of any member present. If an RO is fair for Emil it's fair for RM. I care a lot less about the RO itself than your apparent desire to hold him to a different standard of acceptable behaviour. "Unequal burden" is not a thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
I'm talking about your suggestion for differential treatment for RM. It's the patronising of people with mental disabilities I see a lot of IRL, and portrarying them as incapable of controlling themselves or somehow inferior and thus needing the handicap. You said to Emil "Are you the kinda person that tries to grab ice cream out of an autists hands and cry wrongdoing when you get bit? 🤔" This is a bluntly offensive way to think of someone who has a mental disability, as you're assuming that Emil is in a position of superior responsibility over RM given RM's mental issues.
Since you and I don't know anything about RM, prejudice is going to be apparent here. you're treating him like he's a certified retard, and that Emil is effectively bullying a helpless kid. RM is self aware enough to know what behaviour is and isn't acceptable, and ought to be treated as anyone's equal. I also think this is the default assumption anyone should make when coming across a person with a professed mental illness. Remove the stigma, he's not an inferior human being and he's not retarded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Like, have a cookie for being a savage, but creating traps that catch mentally ill individuals who probably otherwise can't help their reaction, for offenses that otherwise might not be offenses in themselves rubs me the wrong way 🤔
You should clarify at what point you draw the line where alleged mental issues stops being a justification for bad behaviour. Atm you're effectively suggesting total exemption from the rules for RM and I know you don't mean to come across as claiming this so imo it would be helpful to define when too far is too far.
Obviously some members here think he's gone too far so you might find yourself in agreement with them after you've decided where your arbitrary line is drawn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zeichen
RM has three mental disorders? I thought he was just schizoaffective.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't even know if that's his name, but he's never corrected me or anyone else as far as I'm aware so I guess it's fine?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
We've all started calling him Mike/Mikhail. It's caught on at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Is it possible to add a shaded background to pinned posts to make them visually distinct from the normal posts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Go learn how to do a factor analysis and come back when you have an inkling of a clue about what the subject matter is lol. Your familiarity with this material is high school level.With the exception of how much variance in performance g factor accounts for, the entirety of that post is just factor analysis explained.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
it is all about factor analysis, with the exception that I pointed out. You're asking for sources on how to perform a mathematical operation, which is just displaying your illiteracy in the area you're trying to talk about. Obviously I'm not going to cite proof that maths works, you're simply going to have learn it yourself. The fact that you know so little that you don't even know what you don't know doesn't really surprise me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
"many claims" lol.
With the exception of how much variance in performance g factor accounts for, the entirety of that post is just factor analysis explained. Asking for sources on how factor analysis works means nothing more than that you know absolutely nothing about how to perform factor analysis, and likely statistics in general. Go learn it before you start talking about real factor models, ignorant pup.
Created:
Posted in:
IQ is a psychometric for g factor, which accounts for around 30-50% of variance between different cognitive skills. The other 50% variance is not accounted for by the g factor. If you claim g factor is a true measure of "intelligence" you're about 50% correct, which is exactly how much predictive validity you have to work with.
Intelligence theories use factor models and IQ is one of them. the g factor is the most broad and is only apparent after dimentionality reduction. Each IQ test has subsets that all items load onto, and each loading itself loads onto the g factor with pretty high strength. As with all factor reductions, a lot of variance is sacrificed in the process. Anyone who claims the g factor is the only predictor of intelligence doesn't understand factor analysis. It's merely the most obvious predictor. A scree plot however would show you that the sum of the next dozen strongest factors summed together wouldn't match the eigenvalue of the g factor, so it's clearly the only factor worth using.
In short, IQ is a measure of g factor, g factor is the correlation of performance between unrelated cognitive tests, and the g factor accounts for up to 50% of the variance in performance. For an individual an IQ test result doesn't mean much, but in large populations we see trends and correlations that are very useful for scientific study.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@XLAV
since theres no airmax, are you suggesting you'd opt for no mod over a bad one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
A block feature would stop it all before it begins. The whole reason this took off in the first place is because a member started sending out abusive pms to a bunch of members and kept them going, death threats included for some. If such messages couldn't arrive in the first place there wouldn't be an issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Fair enough. The result I got is half the reason I wanted in anyhow lol so I understand why.
Created:
Posted in:
I'd get it if it were $10 tops. I don't see it being worth the current price. Enjoy your inventory lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
cosplay perhaps. Also as a fashionable indicator of mental illness. Some autistic people have lanyards that say nothing other than "I have autism" as if it weren't obvious, but this could be a step up for them.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Those discussing the matter get to decide what it means for the purposes of the discussion they are having which is exactly what we are engaged in doing right now.
If you're coming up with definitions that rule God out of existence, then you've got your answer: God doesn't exist. Easy.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
If you so easily accept that an omniscient God can't be ignorant, an Omnipresent God can't be absent and an omnibenevolent God can't be evil, why is it difficult to suggest that an omnipotent God can't be a contradiction?So now our "omnipotent" being cannot do all logically possible things. The new definition "capable of all things that are logically possible" must be scrapped along with "able to do anything" what is the new definition we are to try?
I don't see why definitions of terms are so impactful. If there is a God and he can't make square triangles, well, so what..?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I agree there's no consensus on what is meant by all powerful. Certainly it's never biblically defined so in the end who get's to say what the "reality" is?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
But lying is logically possible. Are you suggesting I am capable of a feet that an omnipotent being cannot reproduce?
Lying can't be done by an omnibenevolent being. You aren't one, so you can do it. Just like how ignorance is not possible for an omniscient being and absence is not possible for an omnipresent being.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Answer me this, what do you think a Christian means when they suggest God is all powerful?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
It's not logically possible for a triomni God to lie, no. From the start you've been using a definition of omnipotence that makes no sense and nobody uses. Do you insist on that definition because semantically the word can imply 'all things logically impossible' as well?
Created:
The most I can make of your criticism is that omnipotence by it's strictest definition is the wrong term to use for God. However the entire discussion so far has been about semantics, which isn't a particularly useful focus for any discussion.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
So an "all powerful" being can do anything accept those things an "all powerful" being cannot do?
But of course. As I pointed out to Vaga, all Christians assert that God cannot sin or do evil. I'm not sure why you ask if God can make a rock too heavy to lift when you could simply ask if God can do the simple mundane action of telling an outright lie. The answer to both is no. How does that factor into Christian doctrine on omnipotence? It means they understand omnipotence to mean anything logically possible.
You're inserting a definition into their rhetoric that they don't use and then discrediting that definition that they don't use. It's a straw-man.
Created:
-->
@vagabond
then re the OP, I don't think you have an issue with the answer "no."
Created:
-->
@vagabond
is the need to invent a word to describe something in any way a problem?
Created:
-->
@vagabond
It's more to do with the logical coherency of the concept of omnipotence. You've pointed out rightly that true omnipotence is not possible because God can't do everything, but no Christian asserts that God can do anything in the first place. The definition of omnipotence that you're attacking is clearly not the one being employed by Christians.
If your argument is that Christians ought not to believe in a God that suits your definition of omnipotence, then you win because Christians don't believe in such a God.
Created:
-->
@vagabond
Physically possible --> metaphysically possible --> logically possible.
Physically impossible are things you and I just can't do for physical constraints; metaphysically impossible are things that would break the laws of physics; logically impossible things are things that cannot conceivably be done.
You're asserting that religious people invariably believe that God can do logically impossible things. you believe that unless he can do said things, he can't be omnipotent because omnipotent necessitates anything logically possible or not.
Have you considered that though religious people claim God can do anything, they don't claim God can sin? If their definition of omnipotence is as you say it is, then Christian would widely believe God can sin. They believe the opposite however, so your view of what Christians believe about God's omnipotence is misguided.
Created:
-->
@vagabond
The thought existed before the term. If a religion wants to convey the image of a God who can do anything possible, would you discredit their idea because the word they chose to describe it could be extended to mean something else?
Created: