drafterman

I'll vote myself, but Bullish wanted to put together thoughts, please don't end this before the cop is able to do share his thoughts with the thread.

I did, you think there is no double standard when say twitter, Facebook or google  shuts down a group page or website because they don't like the content  and that's  OK but a bakery that refuses to make or promote content they don't like, that's  not OK.  Or are you saying both are OK or Both are not OK

I... completely agree with what you said, not sure how I’m trying to “change history” the only part I disagree with is having an immediate thought of “well they probably won’t like this” is scummy. That’s stupid and you know it. If you’re trying to tell me you’ve *never* been worried about looking scummy as town you’re a liar.

That shouldn’t be a main concern, and should come second to catching scum.

In this case I wanted to wait to discuss, because although I thought GP was scum, I felt the best way to maximize our utility of the DP was more discussion than we got. I *was* looking to scum hunt.

Essentially this boils down to I know these players and I know what their reaction will be. If I flip town you’ll know that I was right, if my allegiance isn’t revealed until endgame you’ll find out then. But I don’t care. I’m not changing your mind and I know I’m right so whatever.

1. Because people can bus? In fact I’d bet that the last scum is on the wagon. But what you argue is another good point, we don’t know if the people not on the wagon were actually against it or why they didn’t vote. 

2. This is fucking moronic because you’re looking at it knowing the flip, which I didn’t at the time. This is stupid, fuck off.

3. That’s not what I was saying I was thinking about. “As far as” signaled the start of a new thought. Again, it was an immediate thought which you know is true. Because the MAIN reason people jumped on me at the beginning of the day was the waffling, not the fact that I had pre-emoted it. I, like you, have played with some of these people for up to 5 years. I know what they’d immediately jump to and I spent approximately 3 seconds thinking of it.

Talk to them about a variety of things. People piled onto the wagon without justification from many of them. As a result we don’t know why they voted GP and it’s easy for them to parrot (ha) talking points now that he’s flipped.

Talk about what happens if he’s town. Talk about what happens if he’s scum. Talk more about general reads than everyone immediately jumping on him and calling it a day. We barely discussed the implications of D1.

That’s valuable conversation. As far as “that’s still too long” if thinking about it for about 3 seconds is too long then yeah I guess I thought about it too long

Yes, it does. Because it knows that this is exactly what would happen. I know that DART players would latch on to something dumb like that and wanted to preempt it.

It’s all WIFOM, but that’s one thing I like way better about MU is deadline lunches so DPs aren’t over in 1/3 or less of the total length

Lunatic, speed, bullish. Am I not generally pro using all our time in live mafia?

I want to lynch grey and don't want to be accused of waffling here I just don't want to hammer [yet]

"Except the octopus wouldn't be greater than the flea in smallness, stupidity, youth, naivete, and immorality."

You could certainly frame it this way.  However none of those attributes possesed by the flea are great making properties.  They're lesser making properties. So the flea is greater in lesser making properties making it not greater but lesser. 

Except attributes can be contradictory. Ergo it is impossible for such a being to exist.

Can you elaborate on this? Which attributes in particular?

Suppose the octopus was greater in ***all*** of its attributes than the flea. The octopus was greater in size, intelligence, age, wisdom,  and even moral perfection.  This would mean the octopus was greater than the flea. I'm stretching the analogy but you get the idea.

Now suppose we have a being that is greater in all of its attributes to any other being in existence. That's an mgb 

I neither agree or disagree because I have no conception of what it means for one being to be superior to another. That is why I've continually asked for you to root it in objective logical reasoning rather than what is personally self-evident to you.

Because otherwise all this argument boils down to is: God exists because it is evident to me God exists.

While you may find that personally satisfying, it's not much of use to anyone else.

Then we get to necessity and contigency.  

A contingent being is one whose explanation for its existence is found in an outside or prior entity. You and I are contigent beings,  our explanation for existence is found in a prior being or state of affairs. 

A necessary being however,  is a being whose existence is not explained by a prior or outside reality, but one whose existence is explained in its own nature. It exists because it is existence. Not because it was actualized by a prior cause. 

Now which of these two beings would you say is greater? A being which was actualized by a prior reality? Or a being who was not actualized by a prior reality? 

I think the answer would be the obvious latter

I'm no historian,  but as far as I know,  Kant never interacted with this particular formulation of the OA because it is fairly new, having been developed by Plantinga in the 70s. 

Kant's objection, again, afaik, was against Anselm's original formulation.  Unless you and I are from alternate timelines,  which is entirley possible. 

"Either existence is one of those qualities or it is not"

The question is which **mode** of existence is greater, Contigent existence or necessary existence. Not whether having existence in and of itself is a great making property. The orginal OA depended on that,  but not this one.

The first premise states that it is possible for an mgb to exist.  The question then becomes what would an mgb look like.

Do you grant the first premise?

Then this falls into "God exists because I define God as something that exists" camp which is tautological. Also you haven't defined what "greater" means.

Well no. Firstly by greater I simply mean having a superior mode of being.  The argument doesn't define God as something that exists de facto.

What it does say though is that IF God exists,  and we define God as an Mgb,  then His existence must be in the mode of necessity not contingency,  because necessity is a great making property. And contigency is a lesser making property 

I think your objection works with St. Anselm's original argument which was based off of conceptualization.  

However, I would disagree,  or at least nuance your statement about existence as part of its great making properties. 

The MOA hinges on the idea that a being with ***necessary *** existence is greatert than one with contigent existence.  That is the main point.

There is no law allowing banning of users. That is my point. Donald Trump is a user. Was a user. But he was banned. Nor can one provider ban another provider. but a provider was banned. Parler. Not because Parler was a a provider for users advocating violence because parket did not allow inciting violence on their platform, but they were banned anyway by Google and Apple.

Content = material, as in one post, not a ubiquitous ban on a user from posting anything.

Only material that is [quoting from paragraph 2[A]: "...obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is

constitutionally protected."  That's why I said a complete ban of anyone is not allowed, because the service provider [Twitter] cannot ban Trump should he want to tweet "roses are red..." as I said in my #82.  Section 230 says nothing about banning users. You cannot assume what it does not stipulate.

Granted now it's much more fun for me just to join every game he plays in until he stops playing mafia 

You may miss it, because it does not specifically say there's a prohibition to ban users. But it does say only content can be banned, and that only on "good faith."  You're required too apply critical thinking.