Total posts: 129
Posted in:
How many players do we have? I want to know whether it's likely that we have 2 or 3 scum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
They both seemed scummy on DP1 to me. Especially Croc but today RM seems especially scummy already. Why is he claiming to know that Croc is Town but to ALSO claim to be roleblocked? That doesn't add up at all. I honestly think that they seem to be scum buddies. The way they interacted on DP1 was also weird.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't get it. Why is Croc proven to be not scum? It seems like RM is claiming to be cop and to have saved Croc? But he's also claiming to be roleblocked? But if he was roleblocked he wouldn't be able to save Croc.
Seems like nonsense to me. Both Croc and RM still seem scummy to me.
But RM seems extra suspicious today. His story is not adding up at all.
Seems like nonsense to me. Both Croc and RM still seem scummy to me.
But RM seems extra suspicious today. His story is not adding up at all.
VTL RM
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That still isn't the definition of naive realism and it's also not what I actually said. Saying that X is X whether we have evidence for it or not is not the same thing as claiming that things exist beyond our knowledge. I did the former, I didn't do the latter. You're the one who is being faith-minded because you're claiming that nothing exists beyond our knowledge even when you can't possibly have knowledge of that.
"You asserted, "ROCK = ROCK, THEREFORE ROCK EXISTS"."
No, I didn't.
I gave a tautology. I didn't give a circular argument.
It gets harder for me to bother responding when I'm being misrepresented over and over.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Whether you say that the metaphysical is also known as spiritual *or* you say that it's also known as spirit ... it's irrelevant because neither are what metaphysics is about in the philosophical sense. Metaphysics is far broader than that.
You say "All words are mental constructions dude. No where did I say Universe has a mind. PLease try an read what is stated, instead of what you project."
And I recommend that you take your own advice. My above point about metaphysics still stands so the point went over your head. And nor did I say that words weren't mental constructions or that you said the universe has a mind. I ASKED if you thought it had a mind or not or if you were just labelling the Universe as God in spite of it not having a mind. I ASKED. So, again, I direct your advice back at you and I suggest that you read what is stated instead of what you project.
"Thoughts ergo concepts, ergo mind ergo intellect ergo knowledge has no weight, no charge, no color, no size, energyless, no spin, ergo not tainted with any properties that we associate with occupied space particles wheter fermions on bosons."
I don't see how this is relevant to my point that thought is a type of experience. I also don't agree that experience or thought are energyless. As far as I'm concerned, EVERYTHING is energy of some thought, INCLUDING experience and thought.
"I stated nothing about "empirical" this or that. Read what I wrote and not what mis-interprete and incorrectly project, only then will you begin to arrive at some of the truths Ive presented."
Nor did I state that you stated it. So, once again, I strongly suggest that you take your own advice and read what I'm actually saying.
It's simply irrelevant that you never used the word "empriical" because empiricism is relevant to the topic. I never said that you thought that empiricism or rationalism was what knowledge was all about. I was giving my view to you and staying on topic. Once again, try taking your own advice and reading what I'm actually saying instead of projecting. I really suggest you take your own advice. I am reading your words clearly. I never said that you said the things that you are claiming that I said you said.
"mind/intellect/concepts do not occupy space, we access this non-occupied space via nervous system."
I think this is a silly view because we live in a universe that is spacial and temporal, a universe consisting of SPACEtime, and our mind/intellect/concepts are part of that universe. So of course they occupy a space. Everything within spacetime occupies a time and space.
I think this is a silly view because we live in a universe that is spacial and temporal, a universe consisting of SPACEtime, and our mind/intellect/concepts are part of that universe. So of course they occupy a space. Everything within spacetime occupies a time and space.
"
All else ---except macro-infinite non-occupied space--- falls into one or more of these above listed catagories and spirit-2, 3 and 4 are in the same catagory called Universe/God/Uni-V-erse"
If you are not merely labelling the universe as God and labelling the mind as "spirit" then please do explain what you think the difference between God and the Universe is and what the difference between Mind and Spirit is.
"If you have too many precondition concepts filling your mind, then you will not really address the specifics as presented."
Again, I suggest that you take your own advice.
Finally, listing specific metaphysical categories, one of them being what you call spirit, is not the same thing as saying that metaphysics itself, as a subject, is spirit.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The concept isn't meaningless at all. Just because not all truths are knowable doesn't mean that the very concept of there being both knowable and unknowable truths is meaningless. Are unknowable truths impractical? Sure. But to say that something is impractical is not to say that it is conceptually meaningless. What's more, we rarely actually know which truths are knowable and which aren't .... so it's rarely even impractical.
Created:
If you don't believe in objective truth then you don't believe in truth at all, as far as I'm concerned. "objective truth" is just a tautology as far as I'm concerned. Truth is necessarily objective and absolute. Truth is that which is actually the case, regardless of opinion, knowledge, or belief, and you can't get more objective than that. That's 100% objective, which is why I'd say it's absolute.
Created:
Yes, experience is a necessary condition for knowledge. But it isn't a sufficient condition. Yes, logic is a necessary condition for knowledge. But it isn't a sufficient condition. Only when you have both sound logic regarding X *and* actual experiential awareness of X do you have knowledge of X.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
What you consider to be philosophical givens don't appear to be clear to me. What's more you say that the metaphysical is also known as the spiritual. Well, not in philosophy it isn't. Metaphysics is much broader than spirituality in philosophy.
What's more, you seem to be conflating God and the universe. Does this mean you are merely labelling the universe as God or do you think that the universe has a mind of some sort? Also, if God is the universe then God cannot have created the universe.
What's more, you seem to be conflating God and the universe. Does this mean you are merely labelling the universe as God or do you think that the universe has a mind of some sort? Also, if God is the universe then God cannot have created the universe.
Experience does precede thought but I would say that thought is just another sort of experience. So it's still the case that empirical knowledge is possible. Although I think that empirical knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient condition for knowledge. Just as I also think that logical argumentation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for knowledge. I think only when you can both explain something logically *and* have a mental experience of it can you have knowledge. Both parts are necessary but it's only when you have both of them together that you get knowledge.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
No, to say that a thing is what it is is not the very definition of naive realism.
I didn't say anything analogous with GOD = GOD therefore God exists. And that isn't naive realism either. That's just an invalid inference.
I didn't make any argument at all. I just tried to get you to acknowledge that tautologies are necessarily true. But you don't seem to understand what a tautology is (just like you don't seem to understand what naive realism is either. Nor do you seem to understand the difference between knowability and truth or knowability and existence).
I didn't make any argument at all. I just tried to get you to acknowledge that tautologies are necessarily true. But you don't seem to understand what a tautology is (just like you don't seem to understand what naive realism is either. Nor do you seem to understand the difference between knowability and truth or knowability and existence).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't agree at all that something must be logically necessary or empirically detectable for it to exist.
You're once again conflating truth and knowledge. Or in this case, more specifically, you're conflating existence and knowledge. You're saying "If X isn't knowable then X doesn't exist" and that's a view that's silly with no basis. There's no reason to suppose that all existence be knowable or that all truth must be knowable.
Created:
Posted in:
All my reads are the same as before. Let's hope I'm right about Croc being super scummy. I see no reason to believe his doctor claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Agreed. If Croc is scum then RM is most likely scum too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yeah, it certainly was bad and it certainly increased overall suffering. There's clear evidence of that and the fact that we are not able to figure out what the ultimate consequences of such a plague will be by, say, 3000 years in the future doesn't mean that we can't have a good estimate that it probably has ultimately caused more suffering than not. You don't need to have omniscience or the full absolute picture in order to have any picture at all.
Okay , really off shopping now. I tend to respond very compulsively to stuff I disagree with.
Okay , really off shopping now. I tend to respond very compulsively to stuff I disagree with.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's still a tautology. It's vacuous, certainly, as it's uninformative. It's not strictly circular unless you include question-begging but it's not question-begging when it's not an argument. The point is that "X, whatever it may be, is still X." Whatever the nature of a rock is it still has whatever nature it has. A thing is what it is.
That is all vacuously and trivially true but it's still true. If ANYTHING is true then a tautology is. Without tautologies deductive arguments wouldn't even work. So I suggest that you look into what a tautology is not in just the colloquial sense of redundancy but also in the logical sense of something that is necessarily true by definition. Ultimately tautologies are just ways of stating the law of identity which can't possibly be wrong because it's wrongness would be wrongness which would be an example of the law identity itself thereby making it not wrong and it instead be wrong for you to say that it is wrong (wrong as in untrue).
It just is the case that a thing is whatever it is whether it is observable or not. It may not be the case that there is anything unobservable but it's an argument from ignorance to say that just because we don't know of such a thing that there necessarily isn't such a thing. I do think that consciousness experience is absolutely fundamentally, as it happens, but so is logic and it's just a logical mistake to say that a rock is not a rock whether you think otherwise or not.
Anyway, I'm off shopping now before I get sucked more into these forums!
Created:
Posted in:
It's been fun catching up with this game although despite being very experienced with Mafia--I got Mason and Miller mixed up because they both begin with M and it's been years since I played--I'm also a big verbal mess as a human-being and I think that only gets exaggerated during games of Mafia :|
I have to go out and do some shopping now. Might be back later today or might not as I've done plenty of posting today and I'm a bit drained. At the very least I'll see you tomorrow (if there is a tomorrow? I know day phases are 72 hours but I can't remember how long it's been).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
Stuff like this could be a double bluff of some sort. Or would it be a bluff? I've confused myself.
I mean, basically the idea is "no scum would really suicide themselves like this so I guess he must be foolishly Townie" .... but that may be what scum what you to think and of course no townie should really do it etiher.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I was just checking because on the forums I've played it is banned so I wondered that if it's not alive then he could know that and just be scum not taking any real risk.
There still may be no real risk if somebody else is likely to get mislynched instead.
Created:
I don't agree that a thing has to be detectable empirically by us for it to exist. And it's begging the question in favor of empiricism being the only reasonable view by doing that. Of course empiricism is the only reasonable view if you literally define something that can't be empirically detected as not real. But it's still the case that a thing that can't be detected would at least be a thing that can't be detected. X is still X whether empirically observed or not.
So you aren't giving an argument for your view at all because you're literally defining something not empirically detectable as non-existent. So you're just question-begging.
Whereas I am not giving an argument for the fundamental laws of logic because argument itself already presupposes it so it's putting the cart before the horse. I can't possibly give an argument without already assuming the laws of logic to be true. Whereas it *is* possible for your view to be wrong because all it would require would be for some things in the universe to be unknowable. And you can't possibly know that that isn't the case. You are just merely defining such things as not really things or not really real. It's just question-begging.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I gave a tautology and you responded with "nope". I will simply correct you and tell you that you must not know what a tautology is if you think that the statement "a rock is a rock" is not a tautology then you're simply wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Also, one thing that's certain is that if Chroc really is scum then we have a perfectly reasonable explanation for why he's perfectly willing to ask scum to kill him .... because he know they won't do it if he's part of their team so he's not really risking anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I didn't say that I believed in a secret, invisible, unnknowable, unreliable purposefully unrevealed measure of total suffering. And I didn't say that such a thing, that I don't believe in, wouldn't be indistinguishible, from an epistemic standpoint, from no measure.
I said that the epistemic question is a separate question. And if consequentalism is a good theory for what makes an action morally wrong then the knowability of such consequences is a separate question. You appear to be conflating two separate questions, one ontologic and one epistemic, and I'm just pointing that out.
It's just the case that if an immoral action really is an action that leads to the outcome with the most overall suffering then even if we could never have any knowledge of such an outcome or measure it in any way whatsoever then that doesn't change the fact that it's still the case that an immoral action really is an action that leads to the outcome with the most overall suffering.
You are conflating an unknowable truth with an untruth and those two things aren't the same. An untruth is something that isn't true whereas an uknowable truth is something that is true but we can never know it.
Finally, you are also presuming that it's the actual consequences rather than the expected consequences that matters. And consequentialism need not assume that at all. It could very well be that ultimately it's the actual consequences that matter ontologically speaking but, as we're not omniscient, if we are to get practical about it from an epistemic standpoint then the reasonable thing to do is to focus on the expected consequences given our best evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
But I do think that Croc is scummier than RM. I'd also like to point out that day one bussing is a thing and it's a tactic to give town cred to a stronger scum role by bussing a weaker scum role.
Created:
Posted in:
To me Croc's arguing with RM really does look look rather artificial and, shall we say, scum-on-scum-action and less like genuine tunneling. But I have to confess that it's hard for me to see otherwise when I'm already biased by the fact that to me they already both seem scummy for separate reasons that I've already given.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I agree with your analysis but I'd also add that softclaims in general tend to be scummier than hardclaims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
When full-on scum slips are absent then recognizing that a soft claim has more scum motivations than town motivations will suffice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I haven't said anybody is confirmed town so why are you telling me that I think that scum is defending confirmed town?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't think you're a moron. And thinking I'm one *is* getting personal. Well, at least it is when you don't keep that thought to yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
And here too where you say that anybody who votes Croc is scum or dumb. I don't know why you seem to be claiming to be so certain about such things when you can't be. It's like you're trying to exclude certain possibilities prematurely rather than looking to the evidence without jumping to conclusions and I can only find scum motivations for doing that in order to mislead people away from possibilities which may in fact be the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Let us not be one of those folks that gets personal over a game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The incredulity and rhetorical question strikes me as suspicious here too. I'll tell you why because this could just be scum trying to create the illusion of doing such a thing. It is common for scum to distance themselves and not tunnel each other but I've played plenty of games where scum do just that to look like they're two townies tunneling. I don't know why you use such words as "guaranteed'' when there is certainly no guaranteee or ask rhetorical questions in an incredulous way as if any explaination that you or Croc are scum is completely unthinkable. I think that's scummy. I don't think we should seem to pretend that we know more than we do.
Created:
Posted in:
LOL I just thought '13 Reasons Why' was the name of this Mafia game. I had no idea it was a TV show. I'm not familar with any of these character names.
Okay, here comes my most important post in the game thus far. So if anybody reads any of my posts then read this one:
Okay, I take it that Ani is a character from the show. But I've played NUMEROUS themed Mafia games based on TV shows where the good guys on a show are the bad guys in the game and the bad guys in the show are the good guys in the game. Game mods are certainly capable of such mischief. So if Ani is a good guy in the show but one of the Mafia in the game then Ani has every intention in this game to soft claim his name only, and not his role, to look Town when he's actually scum. But if Ani really is Town ... why soft claim? Soft claims are generally scummier than hard games and it's for a reason. Namely, it's a way for scum to hide their role but it still paints a target on the back of a Townie. If you're Town you either want to hard claim or not claim at all .... or wait until later on in the game and hard claim at the right point. To me this kind of soft claim role reveal only has scum motivations.
But I also go from reading RationalMadman as very scummy, and most likely his scumbuddy, to just having a slight scum lean on him now. Because if Ani is an actual character in the show that is a good guy then I can understand why on the surface that it would make sense to think of them as Town .... but when you actually look at the fact that it is NOT guaranteed (there are few guarantees in Mafia) and that the motives for softclaiming as scum are stronger than doing it as Town .... then responding to such a softclaim with that this player claiming to be Ani is *GUARANTEED* to be Town rings serious alarmbells for me.
FInally, I haven't seen the show and didn't even know it was a show. I had no idea why this game was called 13 Reasons Why but I can work one thing out logically:
If Ani really is town then if Ani is an important good character in the show then they're more likely to have a stronger power role so it's even riskier to come out with your name. Whereas if Ani is just a minor good character in the show then it's less likely that they're in the actual game and thereby less likely to risk being CCed by the real Ani if Chroc is in fact scum and not actually called Ani. So, I just can't think of a Townie motivation for doing this but I can think of plenty of scum motivations as stated here in this post.
So this is my most important post in the game so far. I could always be wrong but if any post of mine in this game so far has contributed something sufficiently substantive so as to be helpful then I think it's this one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
You can't be CCed if you are just scum inventing a name.
Created:
Posted in:
It's one thing to claim as Miller (I got Miller and Mason mixed up) .... but that so many are insisting on cllaiming on day one is quite odd to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
How on earth is such a character 'guaranteed to be a cop' or something like that when such a 'character' merely consisting of revealing a name without a role, when revealing a name by itself doesn't help Town in any way, and is risking nothing when such a name could be just made up? I don't see how you could really have such a blindspot as to think that revealing a name of a character, without revealing a role at all, suggests a cop or Townie at all in any way, if I am understanding this correctly. And because I don't think that you could really have such a blindspot you are my second scumread second highest to Chrocodile, now. (As, I see his motivations and only purely scummy and it seems very unlikely that you could have such a blindspot as this but it's at least possible. And although Chrocodile could have revealed his name as Town for no good reason whatsover I think it's unlikely as such motives can only really be *rationally* explained by him being scum. And your jumping to his action as Town when all he's done is reveal a name which, like I said, doesn't help Town and could easily be invented with no risk of CC at all).
He's not risking a counter-claim by merely revealing a name that could be completely made up ... so it risks nothing .... so I don't get why he would do that unless he's scum or why you would be so insistent on defending him unless you're his scumbuddy.
He's not risking a counter-claim by merely revealing a name that could be completely made up ... so it risks nothing .... so I don't get why he would do that unless he's scum or why you would be so insistent on defending him unless you're his scumbuddy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't think it's a "dire situation" or at all risky for somebody to claim that their character has a specific name if we have no reason to believe it if there's no actual risk of CC because although actual role claims always risk being CCed ... names can be just straight-up invented. It looks like a way to seem like you're doing something risky and wouldn't do unless you had a good reason to do it .... when really there's no such risk at all because there's no reason to believe it. How does revealing a name help Town? It doesn't. But how could it help scum? By giving the illusion of risking being CCed when really you clearly aren't if all you're revealing is a name that can just be made up.
For this reason I no longer read you as Town and am null on you because it seems like it would be a lot more Townie for you to recognize this. But it could be just that you are Town but you didn't recognize it, rather than you defending your scumbuddy's scummy action. But I absolutely see no non-scummy motivation for revealing just your character's name when doing so doesn't help Town and there's no evidence that you haven't just made the name up and aren't actually risking any CC at all.
For this reason I no longer read you as Town and am null on you because it seems like it would be a lot more Townie for you to recognize this. But it could be just that you are Town but you didn't recognize it, rather than you defending your scumbuddy's scummy action. But I absolutely see no non-scummy motivation for revealing just your character's name when doing so doesn't help Town and there's no evidence that you haven't just made the name up and aren't actually risking any CC at all.
VTL: Chrocodile
For reasons explained above Chrocodile is definitely my top scum read.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Crocodile
Do we have any reason to think that there is anybody called Ani?
There being no CC may be wrongly given as evidence for you telling the truth ... because you might just be lying about your name, no?
There being no CC may be wrongly given as evidence for you telling the truth ... because you might just be lying about your name, no?
And RationalMadman backing that up and saying it would be crazy unless there was a risk of a CC .... I find that suspicious. I am now reading you as scummy and no longer reading RationalMadman as town.
Also, I think that whilst full role claims can be townie .... I don't think this sort of thing where you don't reveal your role at all but claim to have a specific name .... I don't think that's Townie .... because it just looks like a way to seem Town with no risk of being CCed at all, while pretending like there's a risk, because we have no reason to think that anybody in the game actually has your name.
So, again, I repeat, do we have any actual reason to think that there's somebody called Ani in this game?
Also, I think that whilst full role claims can be townie .... I don't think this sort of thing where you don't reveal your role at all but claim to have a specific name .... I don't think that's Townie .... because it just looks like a way to seem Town with no risk of being CCed at all, while pretending like there's a risk, because we have no reason to think that anybody in the game actually has your name.
So, again, I repeat, do we have any actual reason to think that there's somebody called Ani in this game?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I've GTG now too. As I have said before I'm busier on the weekends.
Created:
Posted in:
Also, apologies, I got the Miller role mixed up with that role where it's two townies in one that can communicate with each other but if one dies the other dies. I forgot what role that's called. I thought that was miller.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Agree on all counts except your last point about "because nobody is going to say they're on team scum". That's true but not relevant because I didn't say that. It's still the case that what I said was team-neutral. I can say "good luck team" regardless of what team I'm on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Wow, I wasn't aware of that at all. Thanks for the info.
UNVOTE
Maybe I've just played too many role madness games where explicit role revealing isn't even allowed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's a separate epistemic question to the ontologic question that I was addressing. Just because we may not be able to know what the overall consequences will eventually be doesn't mean that the overall consequences isn't what moral facts are all about. There are both known and unknown truths and there is no reason to suppose that all truths are even knowable ... let alone known.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
A noumenon has to be a thing for it to be anything at all, as far as I'm concerned. Either there is a such thing as X or there isn't. And "There's no such thing as X" equates to "X doesn't exist". Either the noumenon is a thing or it is nothing at all.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I gave a tautology, which is a necessarily true statement, rather than making the fallacy of a stone. Just because I used a stone as example doesn't mean I gave a fallacy involving a stone. The fact that I asserted that a rock is a rock doesn't mean that all that I was doing is making a baseless asseriton. Far from baseless, "a rock is a rock" is necessarily true on account of it being tautologically true. "A rock is a rock" is on a par with A=A which is the law of identity which is the fundamental law of logic and cannot be false.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I said that the fundamentals of logic are analytic. I didn't say that all logic was analytic.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, I absolutely find it suspicious that somebody would announce their role unprovoked. If they're town then they make themselves vulnerable and if they're scum they have reason to lie about it. I can't think of a good reason as a townie for announcing your role from the beginning of day one without provocation. So I suspect that PressF4Respect is scum.
What's more, he also claimed that my wishing everybody on my team good luck was a way to look town. But that's clearly false because "good luck everybody on my team" is an alignment-neutral statement.
VOTE: PressF4Respect
And I'm getting a townie vibe from RationalMadman.
I don't have any other reads yet.
I don't have any other reads yet.
Created:
Posted in:
That's me for today as I'm very busy on the weekends, as I stated before the game started. I might check in a little bit tomorrow but as it's the weekend I probably won't post much until Monday. Good luck everybody who is on my team.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Because a rock is still a rock regardless of if humans are around to observe it.
Created: