Diablo 3 - More Coverage

[Daddy32]

Stop. Stop right there. You're the man, who said racism isn't OBJECTIVELY wrong, because enough people doesn't think so.

To clarify and shed a light on what you've said:

Definition of RACISM:
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism)
"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

This disqualifies you from any and all further discussions about the term "Objectively", period.

 

[DArtagnan]

Stop. Stop right there. You're the man, who said racism isn't OBJECTIVELY wrong, because enough people doesn't think so.

To clarify and shed a light on what you've said:

Definition of RACISM:
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism)
"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

This disqualifies you from any and all further discussions about the term "Objectively", period.

I'm not sure I'm following you correctly.

You made a completely non-sensical post based on total ignorance of the concepts in question, and I'm somehow disqualified?

That's amusing

It's ok that you're quite ignorant of what these words mean, but it's kinda dangerous to let someone like you decide who qualifies for the discussion. So, I'm going to have to ignore that part of your post.

In fact, I'm going to have to ignore you, because you're obviously not capable of understanding concepts even when they're defined for you. That doesn't bode well for future exchange.

 

[Daddy32]

So let me lead you through the argument, step by step:

1. We have two simple definitions (concepts, as you call them): Definition of 'objectively' and definition of 'racism'. (My knowledge of these concepts is full and thorough, let me assure you)

2. Then we have your statement 'Racism isn't objectively wrong' - supported by the fact that many people approve of racism and think it is right.

3. Me, calling you unable of drawing valid conclusions from simple definitions.

4. You, calling me ignorant, amusement providing.

I stand by 3. , because I'm sure you could draw following conclusion using equivalent thinking: "Square root of four is not 2. Not objectively. Because mathematically illiterate don't think so.".

Edit: my reply is to your un(silently)edited post.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

I stand by 3. , because I'm sure you could draw following conclusion using equivalent thinking: "Square root of four is not 2. Not objectively. Because mathematically illiterate don't think so.".

Bingo.

I'm sure Dart will come back with math being a fact and racism being an opinion, but since science has proven the races are equal (and may not even exist at all) racism is thus illogical and a social construct by the ignorant. Therefore, racism is objectively wrong.

In any event Dart is being extremely deflective on this subject. His core point is sound, that Blizzard can do whatever the fuck they want to do. The issue is no one is saying otherwise and he can't seem to grasp that. They can do an objectively wrong thing as long as it's legal, sure, but I do not have to accept it or shut up about it.

 

[DArtagnan]

I'm sure Dart will come back with math being a fact and racism being an opinion, but since science has proven the races are equal (and may not even exist at all) racism is thus illogical and a social construct by the ignorant. Therefore, racism is objectively wrong.

You're not making any sense whatsoever. Mathematics is a set of logical rules that we've invented - and it's considered a science. We have no way of proving that it exists objectively - and the same goes for any result arrived at by these rules. We can assume that it's objective for purposes of pragmatism - and I think enough people agree with it to not bother with whether it really exists or not.

As for racism being an opinion, that's just gibberish. At least, it makes no sense to me. Your idea of science having actually proven that "races are equal" is really interesting. Once you supply this proof, I will consider taking it seriously. Until then, I'll have to consider it a joke. Also, I will not bother to explain why even if races could be proven to be equal, that has nothing to do with saying something racist being objectively wrong.

In any event Dart is being extremely deflective on this subject. His core point is sound, that Blizzard can do whatever the fuck they want to do. The issue is no one is saying otherwise and he can't seem to grasp that. They can do an objectively wrong thing as long as it's legal, sure, but I do not have to accept it or shut up about it.

Deflective? How exactly?

My point isn't that they can do what they want. My point is that it's their product, and therefore I don't think it's wrong to want to control it. I certainly can't see why. That a bunch of children feeling entitled whine about them being "objectively wrong" to control their own product - only serves to strengthen my opinion. If you actually had a case, I might be able to see things from your side.

Sure, you can claim they're doing an objectively wrong thing. I can also claim that the sky is falling and that apples taste like oatmeal. Now, if I could actually explain why or prove it - that would be one thing. You haven't even tried - because you obviously are not capable of supporting your silly position.

You utterly fail to make your case, and you're failing with every post you make.

Until you can point out why it's objectively wrong, I'm going to have to consider you irrational and your behavior is shockingly ignorant in terms of these simple concepts. You actually seem to not understand what "objective" means. Please tell me I'm wrong. No, not objectively wrong - just incorrect

I can try to help you:

You're saying that Blizzard are objectively wrong to require consumers to be online when playing their game. That means that you know - with absolute certainty - that what they're doing is wrong, and that any being in the universe who thinks otherwise is also wrong. It means that OBJECTIVE REALITY is that Blizzard are wrong - because YOU say so.

Do you have any idea how very, very silly that sounds?

 

[DoctorNarrative]

It's pretty clear at this point there is no reason to drag this on. I disagree with pretty much everything you say.

 

[coyote]

I am glad you did not leave on my account, Dart. It's not my wish to start another quote debate here, so I will just quickly comment: First, I had no idea you had personal experiences with drugs. If you ever discuss this, I hope I catch the thread, because it sounds interesting. As you say, though, this one is not the right one. I also agree with you regarding Blizzard in that it's their game and hence their business what they do with it. However, people should be allowed to be engaged into the debate on a more personal level as well. At least I would assume that many who frequent an RPG website have some feelings for the genre, and want to voice their disapproval if they do not like a business decision by one of the most prominent developers of RPG games. This, I believe, is part of the reason these forums exist, and OK as long as it stays civil, which it did. Also, there are plenty of reasons why people might not be satisfied with Blizzard's decision.

Anyway, I really did not take our little debate personally, Dart. It was just me growling back when you barked at me, to keep things balanced

Btw., since I know a few Apple fanatics, this made me wonder:

I said "almost religious". Have you ever had such a reaction to people who, say, seem to love Apple products no matter what? It doesn't mean they sleep with their phones or they shape their life around them.

How do you know they are not?

Then I noticed the whole racism thing (yay for extreme examples!) and thought that maybe we DO have a basic semantic problem. So here goes nothing (from Merriam Webster):

Definition of WRONG
1
: not according to the moral standard : sinful, immoral <thought that war was wrong>
2
: not right or proper according to a code, standard, or convention : improper <it was wrong not to thank your host>
3
: not according to truth or facts : incorrect <gave a wrong date>
4
: not satisfactory (as in condition, results, health, or temper)
5
: not in accordance with one's needs, intent, or expectations <took the wrong bus>
6
: of, relating to, or constituting the side of something that is usually held to be opposite to the principal one, that is the one naturally or by design turned down, inward, or away, or that is the least finished or polished
— wrong·ly adverb
— wrong·ness noun
— wrong side of the tracks
: a run-down or unfashionable neighborhood

I think none of the initial posters ever spoke of "objectively wrong" (the definition of that might be better left to another discussion), so unless you say the dictionary is wrong, you will agree that the definition of "wrong" is remarkably blurry. I think (4) and (5) in particular are in common usage.

 

[DeepO]

Discussions involving categorical imperatives almost always "evolve" into infinite regression. Just sayin´.

 

[xSamhainx]

and they did tread dangerously close to Godwins law, or at least flirting w/ a lesser variant…

 

[Daddy32]

Oh yes, the discussion has gotten ridiculous, philosophical and metaphysical at the same time.

Which is quite strange, because situation is really simple: Blizzard is going to harm their customers. Almost every single customer, whether he is going to admit it, or not, is going to be negatively affected by the Blizzards decision. He won't be able to use his purchased good (/service?) during the battle.net regular maintenance, ISP downtime, in a plane, submarine etc etc. How much pain this means is not certain yet, but it definitely means pain. Unnecessary pain.

Are there any positives? Yes, certainly. Blizzard keeps tighter control of their product, Blizzards shareholders are more satisfied, multiplayer games won't be affected by cheaters.

So, equation is quite simple: Blizzard gets many benefits, some multi-playing players get some benefits - at the cost of harm being done to 99% of customers.
We don't know yet whether the benefits will exceed the harm, but as most of them are on the Blizzards side, we don't care.

So, their act is wrong. Objectively wrong. As is racism. And Hitler! (samhain, there you go!) And I'm neither entitled nor kid, you entitled brat. And mathematics is subject to objectivity. Physics, too - despite being only a set of mathematical models created by humankind.
Amen.

 

[JemyM]

To understand where DArtagnan is coming from, one should have a look at postmodern philosophy and the refutation thereof. Such ideas dominated the academia 30 years ago but collapsed.

It's primary flaw is that it rejects it's own premise. "We cannot know objective truths" is a statement that claims to know an objective truth (that there are none). People got frustrated with the dead-certainity of people who claimed that dead-certainity was wrong.

Postmodern philosophy today is most commonly used to sell snakeoil.

 

[coyote]

To understand where DArtagnan is coming from, one should have a look at postmodern philosophy and the refutation thereof. Such ideas dominated the academia 30 years ago but collapsed.

It's primary flaw is that it rejects it's own premise. "We cannot know objective truths" is a statement that claims to know an objective truth (that there are none). People got frustrated with the dead-certainity of people who claimed that dead-certainity was wrong.

Postmodern philosophy today is most commonly used to sell snakeoil.

Exactly that!

Also, while I am (perhaps arrogantly so) confident that I know more about actual logic than most studied philosophers, having studied among other things mathematical logic and theoretical informatics, both of which deal with the limits of complex axiomatic systems, applying mathematical terms indiscriminately to natural language is just an insult to common sense, since natural language never aspired to be precise in a mathematical sense.

P.S.: The downside being that getting a complex idea across using only words is not always trivial and in science usually involves a mathematical description in formulae.

 

[DoctorNarrative]

To understand where DArtagnan is coming from, one should have a look at postmodern philosophy and the refutation thereof. Such ideas dominated the academia 30 years ago but collapsed.

It's primary flaw is that it rejects it's own premise. "We cannot know objective truths" is a statement that claims to know an objective truth (that there are none). People got frustrated with the dead-certainity of people who claimed that dead-certainity was wrong.

Postmodern philosophy today is most commonly used to sell snakeoil.

Indeed.

I don't have a problem saying certain things are objectively wrong. Forcing women to stay in a burning building and die because they don't have the right clothes on is objectively wrong, I don't care what what religion influenced it. Etc. etc.

 

[JemyM]

Also, while I am (perhaps arrogantly so) confident that I know more about actual logic than most studied philosophers

I do not believe postmodern philosophy is what to expect from an educated philosopher. Postmodern philosophy is what to expect from someone who either didn't study philosophy or dropped out early on. Postmodern philosophy is attractive for the beginner, but you reach a point where you understand that it's useless. It doesn't offer anything (more than some useful arguments to use when you sell snakeoil).

Epistemology and the philosophy of science are useful.

 

[coyote]

I do not believe postmodern philosophy is what to expect from an educated philosopher. Postmodern philosophy is what to expect from someone who either didn't study philosophy or dropped out early on. Postmodern philosophy is attractive for the beginner, but you reach a point where you understand that it's useless. It doesn't offer anything (more than some useful arguments to use when you sell snakeoil).

Epistemology and the philosophy of science are useful.

That sounds interesting. I read a bit about Karl Popper, and he seemed to have some good ideas, but truth be told, I am incredible ignorant about these branches of philosophy ("The Problems of Philosophy" by B. Russell has been on my bedside cabinet for a while, but I never got around to read through it, embarrassingly. Maybe I will correct that when I have a bit more time again).

Anyway, if I can give you any advice: if you get the chance to visit a lecture in "Theoretical Logic" in the mathematics department, and the professor is competent, I would visit it and do all the exercises. Since it stands on itself, you do not need a heavy background in mathematics at all, although you will need to get comfortable with the mathematical way of thinking. At least where I studied, lectures of logic in the philosophy department were gravely lacking and missed out on all the exiting results, e.g. the proof of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. They just read a lot of loosely related literature, while the lecture in the mathematics department was one of the most interesting I had during my studies.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

I fully understand people not wanting to support it and even speaking against it. What I can't understand is when people take it as an assault on their person, and an objectively wrong act by Blizzard. That's why I said it was almost religious - though it wasn't specifically directed at DoctorNarrative. It's a general reaction to the general reaction.

That would be extraordinary.

A threat emerges. Not condoning, no supporting it, speaking against it in a desert lie the Internet forums would be enough to end the threat.

Would be extraordinary if that was checked in reality.
And why try to prevent people from taking stances that do not affect the future of the threat and its success?Acting against innocuous stances is a waste of resources.

Makes no sense.

 

[Couchpotato]

I'm starting to get a headache reading these comments about philosophy. How did we go from discussing Diablo 3 to this?

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Which is quite strange, because situation is really simple: Blizzard is going to harm their customers. Almost every single customer, whether he is going to admit it, or not, is going to be negatively affected by the Blizzards decision.
Amen.

No. The situation is quite simple but it is not this one.

Blizzard will satisfy their customers who buy their products for what it is: a service platform from one user to another. For them, the requirement of an all time connection (and its consequences) is a highly valuable addition.

People who buy this product thinking they will buy a game are going to be hurt.

People who think game as an object of gameplay correctly and objectively characterize the demand of that feature as a threat to the gameplay quality.
People who think game as a service platform from one user to another correctly and objectively characterize the demand of that feature as an essential feature to securize the service existence and delivery environment.

Blizzard is moving gaming to something else. With the all subjective school, one can be assured this something else (even when it is nothing new and already named) will keep the labels gaming, game, gamers.

The population is divided: people who look for gameplay (gamers) and people who look for a service from one to another (loot monetizers for example)

Blizzard's move objectively hurts gamers and objectively benefits loot monetizers.

As loot monetizers make money doing their stuff and gamers do not make money doing their stuff, the outcome is quite clear, kind of written on the walls.

 

[hishadow]

I'm starting to get a headache reading these comments about philosophy. How did we go from discussing Diablo 3 to this?

Debate about the debate about the debate about the debate about the debate…
thread careful or you'll get caught in the loop.

 

[JemyM]

That sounds interesting. I read a bit about Karl Popper, and he seemed to have some good ideas, but truth be told, I am incredible ignorant about these branches of philosophy ("The Problems of Philosophy" by B. Russell has been on my bedside cabinet for a while, but I never got around to read through it, embarrassingly. Maybe I will correct that when I have a bit more time again).

Anyway, if I can give you any advice: if you get the chance to visit a lecture in "Theoretical Logic" in the mathematics department, and the professor is competent, I would visit it and do all the exercises. Since it stands on itself, you do not need a heavy background in mathematics at all, although you will need to get comfortable with the mathematical way of thinking. At least where I studied, lectures of logic in the philosophy department were gravely lacking and missed out on all the exiting results, e.g. the proof of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. They just read a lot of loosely related literature, while the lecture in the mathematics department was one of the most interesting I had during my studies.

Epistemology and the philosophy of science deals specifically with the limits of knowledge and trying to solve such challenges. Nowadays we might speak about meta-theory instead, where we understand that expanding and evolving the model we use for gathering data is as important as the data we collect.

I won't bash mathematics and logic, but my perspective is that of someone who focused on psychology, specifically cognitive psychology. While philosophers or mathematicians use their brain, my focus have been on the empirical study of thought, and it's flaws. There aren't many pure rationalists among the more educated philosophers, but they aren't uncommon among laymen. These people tend to trust their own brains capacity a bit too much. While their thoughts may be both structured and ordered, they tend to allow preconceived concepts go unchallenged.

There's a quote by Bertand Russel that "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." This actually have been studied and is also known as the Dunning-Kruger effect or Illusion of Superiority. People with high intellect who believe in their thought too much, but have very poor and limited education, tend to fall victims of this pittrap.

When shown that your clear thinking wasn't, that your own perception betrayed you, that people who believe they have clear thought behave in a way that show they do not etc you begin to worry. But it's also then you begin to realize the importance of epistemology and the scientific method. You need an ordered, consistent and methodological approach that incorperate both structured thought, empirical data and metatheory in order to minimize mistakes.