Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1085109As one of TheRPGSite's resident theologians, I'm going to try to minimize dragging this further off topic, but I recommend this essay by George Weigel--it might help folks understand why people seem to be talking at cross-purposes on the topic of freedom. (To give it some gaming relevance, it might be characterized as a Lawful vision of freedom in Thomas vs. a Chaotic vision of freedom in Ockham.)


Bunch, I saw it before it got redacted for violating the taboo, but it looked to be the original Paizo board posts from 2017.

Thanks reading it, I'm always open to new perspectives and to learning or changing my paradigms.

Many thoughts regarding the article shared by Armchair Gamer, I will not comment on all of it, since it would need many days to do so. But there's something that I profoundly disagree with and that I will address.

"Tyranny thrives in a world in which means always trump ends. The freedom of indifference cannot sustain a truly free society."

Er What? Is the author saying the ends justify the means?

Funny enough I disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas because he claims that evil intent always makes the ends evil and viceversa. And now the Author who at first seems to agree with him seems to be saying that the ends justify the means. Neither is true, the end isn't evil because the intent was evil nor good because the intent was good, much less do the ends justify the means.

Lets say Dangerhair X is trying to censor my game. The result is that more people know about it and since -now- there are enough people who don't believe the Dangerhairs or who just to stick it to them will either buy or promote my product I end up selling way more than previously anticipated.

Is that a bad result? Nope, and neither does the result justify her trying to censor me.

Lets say Person Y truly believes vaccines cause harm, and doesn't vaccinate his/her children, they get polio and end up paralytic. Does the intent make the result good? Does the result make her/his intent bad?

Evil outcomes can and often do come from good intentions.

This struck me as important, since the author also seems to be saying that making war to a country that had nothing to do with a terrorist attack was justified. Or that it's okey to invade other countries to impose liberty and democracy. It hasn't worked, it's not working and it will never work.

The debate about moral relativism is something few ppl seem to truly understand, conflating morals with ethics. Morals are relative, ethics are not. There are superior moral standards just like there are superior economic systems. We know this by studying the results, which is not to say that the bacha what'sit'sname use of raping young boys under 12 (because that's not gay sex somehow) is something to be accepted in an enlightened society because a more barbaric one finds it moral. Ethics are to be used to determine what moral standard is superior and should be followed.

It would be wise to instead use cultural relativism, since that's what the SJWs are truly arguing for. If all cultures are equal at every level then the mere act of judging a foreign culture is bad. But this isn't true, some cultures are better than others, some morals are better than others. And infringing in anybody's freedom on the basis of my morals IS Tyranny.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1085109As one of TheRPGSite's resident theologians, I'm going to try to minimize dragging this further off topic, but I recommend this essay by George Weigel--it might help folks understand why people seem to be talking at cross-purposes on the topic of freedom. (To give it some gaming relevance, it might be characterized as a Lawful vision of freedom in Thomas vs. a Chaotic vision of freedom in Ockham.)


Bunch, I saw it before it got redacted for violating the taboo, but it looked to be the original Paizo board posts from 2017.

Thank you!  It's not trivial to try to figure out from first hand sources what is going on with the whole Bill Webb's thing.  Is his statement the first statement of what went on?  Up until I saw his stay all I could determine is she said she was harassed. He apologized for poor behavior and she seemed to be done with the matter.

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;1085115Anything to support that anyone is actually sueing anyone, other than hearsay and a vague tweet?

You need more proof of something than a Tweet? Why? :confused:

How dare you sir! Tweets are our most sacred and profound communication!

And Brawndo has what Tweets crave.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1085196You need more proof of something than a Tweet? Why? :confused:

How dare you sir! Tweets are our most sacred and profound communication!

And Brawndo has what Tweets crave.

I stand corrected - such a shame if 16+ pages of gloating would be all for nought. Tweet my pretties, tweets of justice.

on Nick Reiketa's stream tonight, he made a quick update, he said the lawsuit is still developing and the early stage, also the night of his first stream, SJG's site had there biggest sales, even including Chistmas, and black friday, so ppl are quite happy to support them

Quote from: Goober;1085256on Nick Reiketa's stream tonight, he made a quick update, he said the lawsuit is still developing and the early stage, also the night of his first stream, SJG's site had there biggest sales, even including Chistmas, and black friday, so ppl are quite happy to support them

And his sources are....?

Quote from: S'mon;1085030Not sure how you could have missed it:

Forgive me if I'm reading that wrong, but... that's not her saying she hurt herself pulling him off someone, that's her saying someone was?

And, well, she's Crystal Frasier, isn't she one of the well known nutbars?  Price, Helton, Dellorfano... any of them told me the sun came up this morning, I'd make sure to check NASA's website to make sure a spontaneous nova hadn't occurred.  I sure as heck wouldn't take their words about one of their political enemies (straight white normal men) at face value without evidence.

Quote from: Lurtch;1085264And his sources are....?

His source is Steve Jackson Games.

He also mentioned that he wasn't impressed with Bill Webb's public apology about this, but he takes the stance that many who have tangled with SJWs have -- never apologize, because they twist it into an admission of guilt.

Quote from: KiTA;1085279And, well, she's Crystal Frasier, isn't she one of the well known nutbars?  

Statements 'against interest' are normally considered more reliable. So Frasier being an SJW, makes Frasier saying Webb did not assault anyone, more reliable, not less.

Depends on the jury.

Quote from: Lurtch;1085264And his sources are....?

Bill Webb's lawyer, Ty Beard. Of, I believe, Beard, Harris, Bullock, and Hughes.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085123Not sure how this relates to the part you're quoting.

Changing the subject and moving the goalposts. sjw. Please reread until you do understand. feel free to ask specific questions about any part of where I stated that moral obligations have no relevance in determining if a person is free.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085123Let's say humanity has evolved to such a point and that there are no more Psychopaths or Sociopaths. Or that you're in Heaven. In the first case by natural means you can't think about such things and in the second case you're one with God and since there's no sin in Heaven (and I assume you agree there's such thing as sinfull toughts) you can't think such things.

This would be incorrect. First ...thinking is not a sin. Second, it is irrelevant whether there are no more psychopaths or sociopaths because that certainly wouldn't prevent me from continuing to think about good and evil, and about ways to be good. Finally it's not that one can't think sinful thoughts in heaven, so much as no one want to think any sinful thoughts anymore. big difference. What you are claiming of what I can and can't do is impossible, and so would not occur. that would be in any conceivable future where I have free will, and our lord did grant us free will, did he not?

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085123Never assume malice when it can be explained by other means. I don't add anything to confusse anything. I'm explaining that TO ME it's a waste of time to think in doing harm to others since I will not do it.

This is a false statement and a lie from you, since you are doing harm to me, as we agree here, and yet you insist on continuing to argue that morality is relative.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085123Sorry I can't, and I'm not sure it's even possible to presume that the past. present, and future are all one. Since it would require for me to have 20/20 vision of all the possible consecquences of my actions.

I'm sorry you are unable to properly conceive this, and that your vision of what is real, and what is not real, is tainted by your argument for your own limitations.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085123I don't pressume to be the moral arbiter or to dictate to others how THEY have to live their lifes.

To trully respect other people's freedom you must allow for them to make choices that would limit their freedoms.

No, and no. First, if someone else is going to live their life and injure or kill me or someone else. a third party perhaps, then you can count on it that I will interfere to prevent them from harming me or others. Second, I'll respect other peoples freedom, and they get to make choices to limit their freedom, but I am going to show them the consequences of their choices, and I'll do my best to show them in advance, how the choice they make will limit their freedom. With that I am respecting them, by giving them an opportunity to make the best decision possible.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085123Yes, you can be free and evil, free and good, a slave and evil or a slave and good.

What I or you choose and what we SHOULD choose are not always the same, and I'm not in the habit of trying to force other's to live as I see fit. In this world, to be free you HAVE to be able to commit evil acts, the morality comes into place when I make a judgment about one possible act and choose not to do it because I deem it evil. (Or in certain cases because the mere tought makes me puke).

No, if you are evil, you are bound by some compulsion that prevents you from being good, and therefore you are not free.  What you do choose, and what you should choose, should be the same. No one should feel compelled to commit evil acts in order to be free, because that compulsion binds you to an outcome that produces and grows evil.

Finally, if you feel compelled to commit evil acts to me, or to anyone else, and I'm around, I'm going to probably react like she does here...

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085162Funny enough I disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas because he claims that evil intent always makes the ends evil and viceversa...
 
Lets say Dangerhair X is trying to censor my game. The result is that more people know about it and since -now- there are enough people who don't believe the Dangerhairs or who just to stick it to them will either buy or promote my product I end up selling way more than previously anticipated.

Is that a bad result? Nope, and neither does the result justify her trying to censor me.

This is incorrect. The result is bad, not for Dangerhairs X, but perhaps for the other people (like, for example, Dangerhair Z) that lost out on business they may have needed to survive, becuase Dangerhairs X suddenly took the money that third parties were originally intent on giving Dangerhair Z, Now Dangerhair Z can't pay for the polio vaccine that would help his children.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085162Lets say Person Y truly believes vaccines cause harm, and doesn't vaccinate his/her children, they get polio and end up paralytic. Does the intent make the result good? Does the result make her/his intent bad?

Yes. and here is why. If there is evidence that the polio vaccine will help his children, and that person refuses to evaluate that evidence and insists on refusing the vaccine, then the result will be bad, regardless of the intent of the person who is responsible for making the decision, the result is bad, the odds are against the survival and continued health of the child. Anything that can be attributed to ignorance, is evil.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085162Evil outcomes can and often do come from good intentions.

Sometimes, yes. Much more common though is that evil outcomes come from actively being evil, or in a person taking no action at all to prevent evil from taking root and spreading. Which do you choose? Are you going to try to do good, are you going to do nothing, or are you going to be evil. These are really the only choices available to you at any moment in time.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085162This struck me as important, since the author also seems to be saying that making war to a country that had nothing to do with a terrorist attack was justified. Or that it's okey to invade other countries to impose liberty and democracy. It hasn't worked, it's not working and it will never work.

Well, we agree completely here. A question for you on this though, since invading other countries and killing people doesn't work to establish liberty and democracy in other countries what are you actively doing to stop the damage being done by our own government and military to conducting such action?

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085162The debate about moral relativism is something few ppl seem to truly understand, conflating morals with ethics. Morals are relative, ethics are not. There are superior moral standards just like there are superior economic systems. We know this by studying the results, which is not to say that the bacha what'sit'sname use of raping young boys under 12 (because that's not gay sex somehow) is something to be accepted in an enlightened society because a more barbaric one finds it moral. Ethics are to be used to determine what moral standard is superior and should be followed.

It would be wise to instead use cultural relativism, since that's what the SJWs are truly arguing for. If all cultures are equal at every level then the mere act of judging a foreign culture is bad. But this isn't true, some cultures are better than others, some morals are better than others. And infringing in anybody's freedom on the basis of my morals IS Tyranny.

Morals are not relative. First, the claim that morality is relative and conventional is itself a moral claim - yet it is put forward as an objective and non-conventional fact. Minimally, this shows that not all morality is relative, whether or not there is a god.

Secondly, people who put forward such relativism often draw the conclusion that therefore we 'ought' not to interfere in the practices of other cultures. But if morality is all relative, then there can be no objective 'ought' about not interfering in other cultures.  Relativism does not offer support for toleration.  If all morality is relative, then toleration is no more objectively the answer than authoritarianism.


Thirdly, do religious believers really think that if there were no God or gods, it would be perfectly morally acceptable - objectively - for them to rape, pillage and murder? I doubt it.

These are just some of the considerations that should lead us to beware claims such as 'It's all relative, isn't it.' ?

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085377Thirdly, do religious believers really think that if there were no God or gods, it would be perfectly morally acceptable - objectively - for them to rape, pillage and murder? I doubt it.

Check your history books and your current newsfeed. Religious believers quite often believe it's awesomesauce to rape, pillage and murder.

In many cases murder is beyond "morally acceptable", and in fact required, expected or honored by their god.

Humans suck.

And abolishing religion only means the suckass humans do the same stuff under a different guise.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085368Changing the subject and moving the goalposts. sjw. Please reread until you do understand. feel free to ask specific questions about any part of where I stated that moral obligations have no relevance in determining if a person is free.

1.- How did I change the subject or tried to move the goal post? Again assuming malice.

2.- So I'm an SJW eh? Nice, I have been civil to you but you resort to namecalling. Lets see if you like it when I respond in kind.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085368This would be incorrect. First ...thinking is not a sin. Second, it is irrelevant whether there are no more psychopaths or sociopaths because that certainly wouldn't prevent me from continuing to think about good and evil, and about ways to be good. Finally it's not that one can't think sinful thoughts in heaven, so much as no one want to think any sinful thoughts anymore. big difference. What you are claiming of what I can and can't do is impossible, and so would not occur. that would be in any conceivable future where I have free will, and our lord did grant us free will, did he not?

3.- No sin of tought eh? Exodus 20:17

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085368This is a false statement and a lie from you, since you are doing harm to me, as we agree here, and yet you insist on continuing to argue that morality is relative.

4.- So you are a mind reader and my writen words are somehow harming you?

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085368No, and no. First, if someone else is going to live their life and injure or kill me or someone else. a third party perhaps, then you can count on it that I will interfere to prevent them from harming me or others. Second, I'll respect other peoples freedom, and they get to make choices to limit their freedom, but I am going to show them the consequences of their choices, and I'll do my best to show them in advance, how the choice they make will limit their freedom. With that I am respecting them, by giving them an opportunity to make the best decision possible.

5.- Eh? We have laws to punish those who violate other's people's rights. Even Here in México.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085368No, if you are evil, you are bound by some compulsion that prevents you from being good, and therefore you are not free. What you do choose, and what you should choose, should be the same. No one should feel compelled to commit evil acts in order to be free, because that compulsion binds you to an outcome that produces and grows evil.

6.- Which contradicts that wich you said before and the part I'm answering here. Since YOU said you could have both, neither or one or the other. Remember that part about moving goalposts?

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085368Finally, if you feel compelled to commit evil acts to me, or to anyone else, and I'm around, I'm going to probably react like she does here...

7.- And now the threats, Boy wish I had known you're an internet tough guy before.

8.- Regarding your other response to one of my posts. I'm a Maya, born, raised and living in México City, I can't do shit about YOUR government invading countries with the pretext of freedom, democracy, morals, or WoMD.

9.- Due to the name calling and threats I'm getting out of this "conversation". See you in the interwebs tough guy.