Gaizokubanou

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    964

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gaizokubanou

  1. Posted

    State is social, deals with justice, warriors are violent, fits the thread title? XD

     

    Quick summary of my take on it is this.

     

    State are currently most widely acknowledged highest tier arbiter of social rules (certain religions and ideologies (which states are arguably part of) are close up there but differently).

     

    When people have feuds, most of them refer to higher authority for quick and peaceful resolution. (this is the phase I previously referred as "inactivity of people", referring to our habit of going along with existing social norms, and this is how state actually get to exercise all of its power because its enforcers are also just people looking for guidance in exactly same fashion, IMO).

     

    So people often refer to state authority for quick resolution as it is commonly agreed as the most powerful top-tier arbiter

     

    For states to remain as this top tier arbiter of things, it needs the ability to enforce its demands in case of breach of this habitual existence.

     

    And the best way to enforce demands in case of breach is it either threat of or use of force.

     

    So it's not that states are actively violent (theoratically, I think no entity could maintain perpetually active violence up as it's core identity, including even the most violence oriented organizations like the military(EXCEPT for stars, those are constantly exhibiting ultra violence with all that fusion and heat and light...))... it's that by it's nature it is always prepared to resort to violence.

  3. Posted

    Yep, that clears things up.  Much appreciated.  Although I suppose I don't quite agree to the extent of the conclusion still (I just hold a more chaotic view on state as just a common idea that is held together mostly by inactivity of people more than anything), but I can follow the chain of thought clearly now.

  4. Posted

    Gormongous I agree with the observation about the nature of the state, but don't see how that conclusion follows.  Maybe I'm thinking of different notion of 'right' here.  Could you clarify please?

  5. Posted

    I too dislike the callout culture but that makes me really reluctant to callout the callout culture.  And that's not meant to be sarcastic.

     

    So outside of delving into another possibility for calling out those who are calling others out, I would just like to say... I haven't lived long, but I've seen some weird variety of fucked up people in my short life thus far.  Best not to start fight on every tiny infractions because then the fight never ends and there is noone left worthy to protect.

     

    Just going to quote Soren Johnson on this subject because I think it is relevant (as I think ideologies are core part of the calling out)...

     

     

    I personally despise ideologies because they inevitably lead to a belief that there is one set of solutions to the world’s problems. One set of solutions means all other options are heretical, which means they must be controlled. Ideologues put ideas above people, which is the beginning of terror and oppression. People are more important than ideas.

    Of course, discouraging rigid thinking is not the only reason I make games, but it is the best answer I can give to [the] question. If I ever get to release my dream strategy game, this idea will be clearly be at the center of the design.

  6. Posted

    The lie is 'once', as you are notoriously prone to getting hit by boomerangs while on holidays in Oz.

     

    Kekeke

     

    The lie was being in Australia.  I was indeed hit in the back of my head with a thrown boomerang at... I think I was 11?  First year of immigration, my father thought it would be brilliant to buy a boomerang.  Turns out it's fucking dangerous to try to catch one on return.  But no that's not how I got hit.  I was in the backyard of my apartment complex then my cousin threw it at me.  Good thing I just caught myself from getting way too much info.

     

    Bless my giant skull.  This thing took a beating that would have taken lives of less fortunate.

  8. Posted

    Pretty simple, post a single sentence composed of a lie and a truth, with a simple game for everyone else trying to guess the lie and the truth apart :)

     

    I'll start it off with this.

     

    "Once I went to Australia and got hit in the head with a boomerang"

  14. Posted

    I've never actually heard of anyone frying computer bits from static electricity but people always seem so worried about it all the time. Does anyone know anyone who has actually blown up stuff?

     

    When people post about how their parts are DoA, I wonder how much of that is attributed to being careless with static or manufacturer's fault?  Damage from static doesn't have to be visible from what I've read.

     

    But at the same time I also read that most modern parts are built to ground quite a bit of shock themselves...

     

    Edit: Amusingly I just remembered my old trick I used to build my other PCs... I just kept base contact with the case with my feet (barefeet at home anyways), leaving arms very much free.

  16. Posted

    As the thread title says.  Because it's winter here and I'm suffering from massive amounts of static shocks and I have to build a new PC in few days when parts arrive.

     

    All of my house has carpet other than the bathroom.  Bathroom also has the highest humidity.  Other than the strangeness, it just sounds like the room with least static electricity?

  17. Posted

    So, what about dolphins, whales, and great apes? Persons or not?

     

    It seems to me it either is or isn't okay, at a basic level, to kill something, absent extenuating circumstances. Like, just take a living thing that hasn't done anything particularly special, doesn't have any particular link to you, etc. It's just a thing you could or could not kill. Personhood, you say, makes it the case that you can't kill this thing. Ditto for potential personhood. It sounds like you also think there are other reasons not to kill a living thing, even if it's not a person. What might these reasons be?

     

    All much closer to being a person than say, a roach. And deserves more protection than say, a roach.  And a roach would be more of a person than say, a chair.

     

    I don't see personhood as this binary thing that makes someting's life valuable or not upon passing certain threshold.  I see it as a very gradual scale.  So the extenuating circumstances, for me, is never binary but always a balancing act that changes depend on the technology and other tools you have at hand.  Say on eating pigs on our current world in NA.  I think it's unjustifiable because I see no reason how few people's pleasure of eating pork would offset the slaughter of a pig given plenty of alternatives.  But say Earth is dying and you can ship off only few lifeforms on this ship that can reach safe habitable planet.  At that point I wouldn't argue in favor of humans in general (again, distinction I dislike to use but it has it's purpose here for shorthand), I would argue for best and the brightest among the humans against those who are less bright.  And on a flip side, if we were to ever reach technological capacity to create and maintain personal utopia for everyone with zero negative environmental affects, going out and spreading pesticide on insects would be quite unforgivable.

     

    I think you were just too caught up in other arguments and ascribed others' view onto mine, which is, I think, different.

     

    Edit: And ultimately, I get that we have to make a decision which is very much of a binary process... but my point is that the binary aspect has more to do with practical (like time and resources) rather than something fundamental.

     

    Edit 2: And I'm using 'personhood' as close analog as sentience-intelligence-ethical behavior combo, which would be a correct assumption about my view.  But one thing that I think deserves more look into is say, ants or bees.  They seem quite rudimentary in individuals, but far more complex in a group.  I'm interested in whether 'personhood' can come to being in that sort of hive capacity format.

     

    Edit 3: And apologies for previously misleading use of "personhood" as a singular state instead of how I'm describing now as more of a scaling value.

  18. Posted

     As I noted above, personhood is option #8. It leaves you unable to explain why we shouldn't be able to kill as many babies as we want, at least on the face of it. You're welcome to try to wiggle your way out of that one.

     

    It does out of practical reasons.  1. Most babies have clear potential to develop into a person.  And for those that don't (which would include incurable or any other great, permanent damage to the mind), in theory yeah they don't share equal protection as a being that achieved personhood... but I would argue against practice of treating them as such because due to purely practical concerns, that distinction gets blurry really fast and it's just easier and safer to play safe.  And I'm happy enough with those practical reasons alone.

     

    And why in the world are you trying to imply that this automatically leads to "kill as many babies as we want"?  Nowhere did I imply that personhood distinction means anything less than a person has zero value (which is what you are implying by saying that I must be ready to make a counter against an idea that requires that).  I don't need to "wiggle" my way out of anything here.

  19. Posted

    Let me google that for you.  On the flip side, maybe not :P

     

    On the practical aspect it's intriguing how much less trouble I would have to convert completely into vegan diet than most of you cause of my acquired taste in lot of traditional East Asian foods (I can go far with rice and some bean paste (doenjang)).  But that thing literally smells like shit (and I meant that 'literally') from far away so I wouldn't recommend it to strangers online out of friendly spirit.

  21. Posted

    This is kind of a middling article but it does contain a thought that hadn't occurred to me:

     

     

     

    ...and then it tries to claim that Anita is bad at her job without any backup so fuck that guy, but it's an interesting point: Rockstar must shit themselves every time a new Tropes vs Women game comes out because here is someone who has a critical viewpoint who doesn't care in the slightest about the game's scope or ambition or fidelity or fun factor in her critical work. I wonder if Tropes vs Women has had a measurable effect on sales figures of certain games.

     

    Extremely doubtful given Rockstar's long history with controversy (they seem thrive on it, or fare well regardless of them).  Also doubtful on second part but that's more of personal hunch, having hard time imagining large sizable portion of customer base who would have gotten say, GTA5, but then sees TvW (which is doubtful in the first place) and then decides not to buy one.  Again, just a hunch here but my thinking is people who would agree with TvW were already grossed with aspects of games (or any other popular entertainment format that convey these tropes) and either don't buy them or buy them while understanding them... and those who don't agree prior to the video probably won't agree cause of the video (otherwise she probably won't get the amount of hate that she gets in the first place).

  22. Posted

    How do you guys feel about the 24" vs 27" thing? My Instinctual stance is that I feel that that extra real estate is worth it, even is a very well reviewed 24" vs just pretty well reviewed 27".

     

    I think it boils down to my desk setup between the two.  When I had bigger desk, I preferred that extra size.  Now I'm using something smaller and am closer to it, 24" is much more convenient to use.

  24. Posted

    Hmm. Can you name an instance in which human lives are not of paramount importance?

     

    I don't think it's popular thing to say, but lot of ethical theories I have heard of assumes that as ultimate ethical agent (that we know of), human life can actually go into extreme negative value and not only lose all importance, but warrants termination if the said human is acting extremely immorally.  It's just never explicitly stated, but it is core principle behind any system that deals with punishment as non-utilitarian tool of justice.

     

    Its sibling idea is that animals are too dumb to ever cross such threshold, similar to how we treat children.

     

    I personally don't like the word 'human' when it comes to ethical discussions though (unless we get to practical aspects of it, where it adds lot of value), as it adds so little.  I much prefer 'person-hood'.  And I think most animals clearly fail to meet my definition of personhood, but so would infants for sure.  But I would say infants have more clear practical reasons why they deserve extra protection, and this reason covers mentally ill, brain damaged, etc.

  25. Posted

     

    Same thing here, I only start at later dates for some Achivements in Crusaders Kings II. Even in Hearts of Iron I start at the early date, but mostly because I haven´t really figure everything there, so start at later date I felt a bit overwhelming for me right now.

     

    HoI3's later scenarios are really cool if you choose the historical underdogs, I highly recommend them.

     

     

    I wish I played more of the later start dates.  It is hard to shake the false notion that more game is the same as a better game.  There's lots of fun stuff in EU IV, and other games, that is readily available from a later start date but would be hard to develop from an earlier one.  Forming Holland, for example. 

     

    Yeah that's the notion that keeps me going to earliest date.

     

    I would really like to but it doesn't work well. You usually have all provinces equipped with the same buildings, no decisions are made even if it makes sense for them to be made. Many historical events are ignored (Where's my Munster Commune?!) and some interesting times do not translate into mechanics and are immersion breaking - i.e. if you start the game 1 day before French Revolution you will discover that France is quite well and healthy. And "Interesting Nations" suggested by the game are a big lie, cause those are interesting historically and boring gameplay-wise.

     

    Native Americans are especially unplayable at later dates as they always start without native ideas, even if they border USA in 1776.

     

    Ah, so perhaps for EU4 later starting date might just be worse off unlike HoI3.  Interesting.