whiteflame

And no, I did not say that the title has the villain in it. I said the title has the ROLE in it.

I’m probably dead tonight anyway, though for the record, some universes actually include a role in the title. Oro gave a good example of that, and Elm seems to just be writing that off as a joke and claiming that my defensiveness means there’s only one main antagonist in my world. Great that so many of the rest of you got universes that don’t out your role. I wasn’t so lucky.

I already said that my universe WILL OUT MY CHARACTER AND ROLE. What part of that was unclear?

Seriously, I’m not claiming at all this phase. If you think that’s scummy, just lynch me. You’ll be killing me either way.

Guys, if you want my universe so bad, then you might as well just fucking lynch me. You’re actively torpedoing town at this stage.

Dude, seriously, do you just want to give every bit of info away to scum before the NP? Pushing for all these claims will screw us over, and I can’t fathom why you’re doing it if you’re not scum yourself. This effort to get every claim you can just screams anti-town to me because you will out a power role or two and get them killed. If you are town, then you’re awfully quick to push like this when you know that all this information is likely to benefit scum more than town at this stage, and jumping so hard on Speed just seems barely justified at this stage.

That would also reveal my character and indicate my role, so I'll have to pass on that.

Well... I just spent all of my Saturday morning getting my car looked at... so that was fun.

Part of the problem I'm seeing with all this is that I'm not as sure as the rest of you are regarding what suffices as a justification. In a sense, the hyenas were justified: they were starving and Scar goaded them on with promises of being able to thrive under his leadership. That seems like a justification to me. I'm not going to get into my character, but I will say that mine is justified in a certain light as well. In fact, I'd say the same is true of everyone who has role claimed up to this point. They're not anti-villains (villains who do wrong for the right reasons), but they all do appear to be villains who were pushed to action by circumstances that were beyond their control. Smeagol was goaded by the One Ring and tortured into performing some of his more villainous actions - doesn't mean he was justified, but from a certain light, you could say that he is. Magneto dealt with the Holocaust and the loss of his family and generally fights against anti-mutant sentiments more forcefully than Professor X. It strikes me that the justifications range pretty wildly, so I don't think that should be our basis for lynching Speed.

Honestly, the main reason why I'm sus of his claim is just the fact that it is a group of characters rather than a single one. Seems like an odd choice in general, as does the fact that this set of characters is a bunch of lackeys, whereas all the claims so far (and my own character) aren't necessarily lead villains, but don't fall into the category of minions like the hyenas do. Still reading through more of this before I make a decision.

Don’t really know what I’m doing all that different this game aside from just generally being less available than usual. Been busier than usual the past couple of days, hence I couldn’t join live mafia last night.

/in

Yep. Elminster is Mikal.

Wasn't too happy with the back and forth between him and Draft in a previous game, but that isn't happening, so I'm good with him so long as he makes it more about the game. In terms of his contributions here, he's behaving largely as I've seen him before: sussing people for minor statements as though they're clear scum slips. I find that he's often wrong with these, but it's DP1, and I suspect there will be more of that going around.

I honestly haven't watched this one before, but that may be the case.

Not really interested in discussing the philosophy of applying moral value to human beings, so I won't object.

Well, it sounds like we've made some headway on figuring out the theme and the potential split. While I won't reveal what it is, I am at least familiar with the show my character is from, even if I'm not familiar with the character. Seems to fit into the theme that's been discussed.

Anyway, back to work, just checking in.

I can't say I'm aware of that, but I'll take you at your word. Not at all familiar with the theme.

"this seems more a measure of probability (which is more likely to die on its own if we do nothing) rather than a clear delineation. You seem to be covering for that by arguing that natural deaths aren’t immoral, but by that logic, any unnatural death should be deemed at least potentially immoral. I don’t see how that excludes the deaths of gametes."

I'd contend that human rights aren't necessarily founded in theism, but that's a different story. I'd rather stay focused on the scientific aspect rather than the origins of human rights.

So... wait, are you a single group of people or two separate groups of people?

In general, I'm not a fan of the "DNA gives us natural rights" stance, though I don't think it's hard for someone to argue that even differences of that level in our DNA should lead to substantial differences in the allocation of rights. The difficulty for them is in arguing where that stops. Humans are very similar genetically, but assuming a subset of us accumulated sufficient mutations to remain human taxonomically, but to be different from the rest of humanity by, say, 0.5% of the genome. Are they still due the same rights? If we were to classify them as non-human at that stage, would they still be due those rights? It's more of a theoretical issue at this stage, but basing our humanity on a set of conserved genes, no matter how large, yields some potential problems that we'd have to grapple with at some stage.

I’ll set aside the issues I have with determining that someone gets rights because they have some chance at becoming an adult, though I have those as well. Mainly, I’m just confused about why you’d set apart adults from other stages of development in this respect, and then turn around and say that all stages of development are equally worthy of the rights they are responsible for founding. It strikes me as odd that you would both set this stage of development apart and treat them all as equally valuable. If I might streamline this, what you seem to be arguing is that self-preservation is the reason human rights apply further back than an adult. The input (at least for you) is the zygote, the output is the adult, and disrupting any part of that development chain should be treated in the same light.
 
"So regardless of "when” a cell becomes a human - abortion is already immoral."
 
I’m not so sure that my point buys into this. I’m arguing that any arbitrary selection is problematic, but that means if I can present reasons why the zygote is similarly an arbitrary selection, then any stage of gestational development could be viewed as similarly justified as the point at which it “becomes a human”. Not really the argument I’m focused on, but we can delve further into this if you want.
 
“Any differentiation of post-fusion is arbitrary and has no real weight.”
 
Alright, though I’d say that fusion itself is an arbitrary selection.
 
“I am not claiming that a fetus "has the potential to become a human"”
 
I never said that’s what you were claiming. If you look back at what you said regarding potential, you said:
 
“A sperm cell and an egg cell cannot become a human on their own - this combination is simply a "potential" human being”
 
So what you’ve done here is afford the “potential” label to the individual gametes (though even that’s not entirely true, because that “potential” exists whether they’re entirely separate or right next to each other). You’re drawing a line (fusion) and saying that crossing that line turns one into a human. I’m challenging that supposition, largely because the argument you’re using – that potential to become an adult makes one valuable – applies just as strongly to these “potential” human beings as it does to any subsequent step. You talk a lot about the difference between a qualitative change and a quantitative change, but if we’re going to play that game, then we should do so consistently. The only difference between the potentials of individual gametes and a zygote is quantitative: the latter is far more likely to eventually become an adult than the former. The tacit implication of your points is that we should never base our assessment of whether a stage of development is or is not human on a quantitative measure, yet you appear to be doing just that here. Your split between a “potential” human and an actual human is built on a quantitative evaluation.
 
As for examining why this line isn’t arbitrary, let’s get into that.
 
“1. All humans have equal value - therefore we must choose a single event that makes a human a human (or dismiss human rights as subjective)”
 
At best, this establishes why there’s a need to know that a single event results in humanity – it doesn’t tell us what that event should be. Still, I disagree for multiple reasons. First, if we must know of a single event, then I would argue that we must also know of a single moment. The problem is that fusion is a series of moments. Calling attention to any one is arbitrary, yet entirely necessary based on your reasoning. Second, I don’t see a problem with having some subjectivity in human rights, particularly as they apply to the unborn. I’ve heard this argument before, but I’m unclear on why saying that there is uncertainty in when a human life begins inherently messes with all human rights. Third, if anything, I’d say that the arbitrary selection of a single event does more to harm human rights because it automatically sets groups apart. The sperm and ovum aren’t deserving of rights because they don’t meet this threshold. If, at some future stage, we can generate new embryos or blastocysts without fusion, this would exclude them as well. It automatically otherizes, whereas saying that uncertainty exists recognizes the blurred lines between what is and is not human, allowing us to confer human rights without such constraints.
 
“2. Conception is the single QUALITATIVE change that happens. (pregnancy starts de facto with conception)”
 
Two problems. First, on a fundamental level, I disagree with the characterization that conception is purely qualitative. I can reduce conception to entirely quantitative aspects, if you wish. In fact, every stage of development could be viewed in a similar light. Simply because I can make statements like “we define the start of pregnancy as conception” doesn’t mean that the change itself is qualitative, only that our perception of it is. Second, if a qualitative change is all we need, then I don’t see why I can’t apply this to any other stage of development. Insemination is a qualitative change. Sex is a qualitative change. A beating heart is a qualitative change. A working nervous system is a qualitative change. Independent viability is a qualitative change. Yes, I can reduce every single one of these to quantitative changes, but by your metric, they all yield a qualitative shift. Conception is not the sole qualitative change that occurs, so why should it get preference?
 
“I also want to point out that the difference between a gamete and a zygote is qualitative, not quantitive.”
 
You don’t really justify this. I’m sincerely trying to find the argument that supports this, but your only arguments focus on DNA, which both gametes and zygotes have. You also tie yourself in a bit of a knot here, so I’ll give you the opportunity to untangle it. You argue here that “DNA in itself does not grant you human rights – your own DNA only grants you the status of being a human.” Three sentences later, you argue “Therefore, what has human DNA has rights if humans have value.” The logical progression, therefore, is that DNA confers humanity, humanity confers human rights, ergo DNA confers human rights. Maybe I’m missing something, and I’d appreciate if you could clarify what you meant. Several times, you also say some variant of “killing of all the cells with the same full set of human DNA is murder”, though even this seems somewhat problematic. Henrietta Lacks is most certainly dead, yet her cells live on in HeLa cells grown in labs across the country. If she was killed by someone else, by your view, that would not be murder. Similarly, if we grow artificial human cells in a lab and modify the DNA, we are technically committing murder by getting rid of all the original cells. Maybe this is just me being technical, but your definition of murder still seems sketchy to me.
 
“Human DNA is innately valuable. No, it merely identifies a cell as being human. This means that DNA only tells us WHO are humans. Killing all cells with the same DNA is murder.”
 
Yet your argument is that the quality of being human is innately valuable. If having human DNA makes you human, and humanity is innately valuable, then it stands to reason that human DNA is innately valuable. I don’t see how I’m misrepresenting your argument here, I’m just pulling the pieces of your argument together.
 
“"Potential" for becoming a human gives one value. No. But the potential for becoming an adult gives you the same value as an adult. Killing a child is equal to killing an adult.”
 
I think you mean “Yes” because your explanation confirms the statement is true about your perspective. If the potential for becoming an adult gives the unborn the same value as an adult and adults are due human rights, then yes, the potential of the unborn to become an adult affords them human rights. I’m not sure why you view this as a misrepresentation of your argument when it is literally the argument you’re giving me here, again.
 
“Value is inherent in the traits. No - that would be discrimination and a violation of human rights. The only trait that matters is the fact that I am a human.”
 
I’m also not sure why you’re pushing back so hard on this one. You’re saying that a zygote has distinguishing characteristics from gametes, and that those differences are sufficient to grant the former human rights and exclude the latter. That’s putting value on a set of traits, plain and simple. Maybe you’ll argue that it’s putting value on the qualitative change itself (i.e. fusion), but if I extracted zygote and put it side-by-side with a set of gametes, you’d still say that the latter is due human rights while the former is not, correct? You don’t have to know that the zygote has been through fusion to grant it those rights? Then it is inherently a separation based on traits. 

Well, that failed. And yeah, clearly gave too much power to Pie. Should've known better.

Got it.

I'm on the same page as MisterChris. It may not matter who we kill via which method, but I'd say there's a greater likelihood, given the gun Bullish has already used, that Lunatic has a vest and he doesn't. Seems a bit odd as well that Luna didn't know that a vest could protect against a bomb, though at least from a logical perspective, I grant him that that isn't exactly obvious.

^That's taken from the description of the Anarchist role, so it applies to the bomb that Pie's carrying.

Hence I unvoted already. I get it.

That assumes that there are two scum, but fine, let's assume there are. You're apparently thinking that Luna is scum. Who is his partner?

Well, Draft said that everyone has a role, though I guess "Vanilla with a gun" is a role, so that doesn't really help.

And Bullish, I can tell you now that I'd be a waste of that bomb, but if both you and Luna flip town, I'll eat the lynch in DP3.

I didn't say that you can push the bomb onto someone else. My point was that you could try to get Pie to hand it over to someone else, since if he can redirect, he shouldn't get the bomb. Are you arguing that you should get the bomb instead?

Look, we got time, and I don't want to allow any opportunities for scum to pounce on a lynch without thinking this through fully, so I'll unvote for now.

No.

Not sure what role you're thinking of for this redirection, but all the ones I'm familiar with work during the NP. At best, he has a vest or something else that can protect him from the bomb. Doesn't protect him from a lynch, doesn't result in another kill.

All the more reason why I don't understand Bullish's defensiveness on this. If his goal is to end Luna because he thinks he's scum, then we end him regardless. He's getting what he wants.

If you're correct that it's Lunatic, then we find out in DP3. Baiting for the bomb doesn't protect him very well because all it means is that we lynch him at the end of DP3. It's as simple as that. If your goal is to for us to lynch Lunatic, then you should be begging to be lynched because if you flip town, he's dead either by bomb or by lynch.

I'm not so sure I buy the logic because it does seem entirely possible that his role still fits into the role list, but I was suspicious of Bullish before this. I'm fine with pushing a lynch on him now, largely for behavioral reasons leading up to this DP. I'm still sus of MisterChris, even with this role claim, though I understand that we take a risk lynching him with such a claim. So, for now at least, I'll join the wagon.

However, now my suspicions are strongest against someone else.

Among the remaining group, I’ve gotten the least reason to townread MC. He could be scum or TP, but at the moment, he’s where I’m leaning.

Honestly, yeah, do it.

It is a bit of a different game in general, so I could see how some TP-focused roles might have been shifted to scum roles. It all depends on how it's used, and if scum is good enough to get the hot potato action between two players who aren't scum aligned, then I could see utility in it. Depends on how well scum has played up to this point. That being said, I'd say this is more likely to be a TP role because it just fits that bill better, but I'm not ruling out a scum Anarchist.

I'm OK with this plan, though not super excited about the potential prospect of 2-2-1 at the end of this DP when we have 2 DPs available to us. That being said, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but why is 5-2 not possible right now? Why would a scum Anarchist reveal themselves? Is there a benefit to revealing if they're scum that I'm unaware of?

I've been reading up on the Anarchist role and I've filled in some gaps for myself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like we can pass it as many times as we want during a DP. That leads me to agree with Lunatic, since it means it will either lead to a proxy lynch, or it will land on the Anarchist, in which case he apparently doesn't die but his role is outed, in which case we simply lynch him. The nice thing as well is that, apparently, the countdown number may not be known to the Anarchist, since the role specifies that the count is set secretly. Presumably, the only person who knows that count is Draft. I was initially concerned about this, but not so much anymore, particularly if we bounce the bomb between our two main scum leans. Playing hot potato (yes, I'm aware that's a role as well) between as few people as possible should be our aim, so as soon as we agree as to who has the greater possibility of being scum (right now, I'm still split between MC, Bullish and Oro), we should start the count by having Pie pass it to one of them. Since the passages are apparently announced by Draft, there can be no subterfuge in how this is done.

All this being said, I'm aware that I've been read as null by many of you, and I am willing to be one of the people passing around the bomb. My role may become useful, but it's not currently important. Much as I'd like to keep town numbers as high as possible, if anyone who is town is going down, it might as well be me.

That's interesting. Guessing that means that we don't know when it will count down, which means that it may make sense to hand it off to town next and then a potential scum, rather than just giving it to a potential scum now.

Worth some thought, but I'm going to call it a night, so I think it over tomorrow.

ATM, we're on the same page. I'm reading Luna and warren as town right now, not sure what to think on Pie and you.

Well, I'll take it. Now, what rube killed Speed? We were virtually guaranteed to sus him, given the last game, so I'm surprised mafia would target him.

Why'd you kill Speed?